JoePatroni

That post was incorrect, the transition from longevity based pay to quasi aircraft type pay happened with Contract '95. It established narrow body, mid-body, and widebody pay categories- it had nothing to do with the Delta merger proposal.

pilot64golfer

Drop down the rate of our 747 and 777 to match a 767 sized airplane, telling us its the "aircraft of our future" and then once it is the largest widebody fleet the company says "its a 767 sized airplane and we need to reduce the wages."

You just traded today 777 and 747 higher payrates for the promise of later higher payrates on Sparky.

Exactly what the company wanted.

If you think the company "raised" the 787 to pay what a 747 should pay, you are wrong. We just lowered our highest potentially paying aircraft to suit a slanted SLI claim and the guys on those premium fleets are paying for it.

SpecialTracking

Hey jPOS and Jimmy B,

XHooker

Joe, I think the transition from longevity to pay bands occurred with Contract 97. The reason I remember this is because I was a new hire DC-10 engineer and remember the front seaters talking about the transition when the vote was going on and how it created a true "flush bid." I agree it's both conjecture as to the reason for the bands and irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

XHooker

I never said that. Paybanding is just another way to determine how to "divide the pie" ranging from strict adherence to Decision 83 to strict longevity. What I have said is misapplication of pay rates going forward with an emphasis on dying fleets will have long term negative consequences.

In other words, you believe it to be true despite logic to the contrary.

Exactly what did we sacrifice?

Let's get something straight. First, there are no more "you guys", we're all UAL pilots and we should be interested in pay rates that are the best for all of us, since there is no longer any benefit to attempting to leverage the rates on equipment that historically belonged to either legacy. IOW, clean slate. In addition, why would you negotiate your highest pay for a plane you know to begin going away within the span of the next contract? No other carrier is currently doing that, so why is it in our best interest?

JoePatroni

You could be right, if so, I apologize. I do remember that scumbag Len Nikolai creating a back door retirement plan for all his senior buddies by artificially inflating SO pay on Contract '97. All the capital he ****ed away on those rates went away when they parked the DC-10's after 9/11.

XHooker

You're the one who implied Delta is irrelevant, which indicates you don't understand how pattern bargaining works.

Huh? Actually, I was working.

XHooker

Conjecture.
The point is it's not just a promise of higher pay rates, because we've already got them.

As opposed to a lower band for the 787 and A350? You really think so?

Pay bands obviously merge potentially higher paying planes with lower ones. I never made claims otherwise. What I have said is that it's important to see where UAL is headed fleet wise when framing pay charts and how the claim paybands were strictly a construct of CALALPA for SLI purposes is false because they existed well before the merger.

XHooker

Care to explain how money was taken from the Bus?

I'm one of those guys who retires within the next 15 years and see it a whole lot differently than you.

XHooker

No reason to apologize, I'm just trying to keep the timeline and facts straight. I did get a kick out of how good senior WB FE pay was.