Just to nitpick.....

At the time of the tentative JCBA, August 3 2012, UCH/UAL didn't have any 787's. CAL had ceased to exist on March 3,2012. The first 787 (from a CAL order. UAL also had 787's on order but those were to be delivered later) wasn't delivered until 7 weeks later at the end of September 2012.

So now that the JCBA/SLI political gamemanship is long over, can we get a realistic pay rate table on the next contract that does pass the common sense test? This goes for all aircraft types, large and small and those in between.

DC

 

ALPA National signed the contract...NO? My copy has the ALPA President's signature on it. It's ALPA's job to insure the contract meets its standards. If pay banding wasn't a big deal, then why did National allow it?

 

Your explanation makes perfect sense. Very logical.

The reason that it is a difficult issue is that now LUAL (76T) is now in former LCAL traditional bases. The 76-300 has apparently taken very senior routes/city pairs and this migration or transition of flying has adversely affected ALPA member's pay. These same ALPA members were told it "wouldn't be an issue" by ALPA when selling both the SLI and the JCBA.

There have been changes in the fleet plan, aircraft utilization, and pairing construction methodology since the JCBA. Many a pilot were not well educated on these possibilities when considering to stay on a particular plane and/or base.

Very hard to move on so to speak if you feel a bit thrown under the bus. Except for 0205L, I get the surge of sick-calls on this fleet. I myself am on this fleet. The pay issue doesn't bother me that much, but I do feel like it's the same jet as a 76 400, and it should pay the same for sure as a 787 and on par with a 76 400.

I did vote NO for the pay issue alone and I communicated this to my reps when voting.

 

Yes, the ALPA President signed the contract, like he does all ALPA contracts ratified by the membership. So did Doug Keen, the company man. If you read my post....the one you just quoted....I said pay banding WAS a big deal. A big deal to CAL ALPA. It delayed the negotiations. In the end, we did it the CAL ALPA way....as they wanted it. 787/767-400 in the high band. 767-300 banded with the 757-300. It was all about the SLI. Didn't work, but that was the reason. It's not rocket science.

 

Sled,

For some reason I've never gotten an answer for this question. So let's say CAL ALPA did not 'delay' for one year or however long, how would a deal anywhere near DAL's June 2012 contract have been reached with the company? Hint hint between Smisek and the NMB putting us on eternal ice the hard truth is it wouldn't have happened.

 

Why was the decision made to do the SLI post-contract? It's not a leading question...I just don't remember why it was done that way.

 

Us air /America west

 

I don't know that a deal "wouldn't have happened", as there were other forces at work...the NMB, the Washington firm hired to lobby on our behalf (which curiously is on company retainer now according to my LEC), the picketing, and the high unreliability of the operation (that's probably just coincidence ). But I will agree that DAL's contract sure did set the bar. Big time. That's not my argument.

Reading clueless banter about why the 767-300 is pay banded where it is just torqued me off. Especially when anyone who went to an ALPA meeting or even read updates should know why it happened. I'm guessing Baseball does neither.

 

ALPA policy.

 

That's your answer to the BS that went on during JCBA negotiations. I know - it was JP's wisdom to help delay the JCBA to get a better deal. What fantasy world of denial do you live?