Ok, well, in that case good question. 1989. If I remember right, this was also used to expedite contract talks that year. It got very expensive very fast to have those planes sitting. I left for a while to desert storm, so I don't know exactly the finer details of how the contract got finished up, but the 2 400's sitting were a big part of it.

From what I remember, the pilots, except the newly minted scabs, were very unified. Absolutely no one wanted those first 2 planes to move, even an inch. The only people flying the planes were management stooges, "for currency." Many of you may remember, the scabs hid out in TK and management positions so they didn't have to fly the line and get abused. No revenue flights. Both the planes sat at the SFO service center right next to the pilots parking lot as a reminder.

In fact, Ferris sued in court to get the pilots to fly the planes without a pay scale. UAL lost. Those were different times and the courts were not so management friendly.

No one was complaining about not flying it, mainly because it was thought, and rightly so, that it should have paid more than the rope start. None of this pay banding nonsense.

In comparison to today's PTC issue? I'm a bit disappointed at the complaining about the MEC's decision. I thought they explained their reasoning quite well in their explanation letter. I think it will eventually be for the greater good. In large part, anyone on the property with less than 10 years, meaning 9-11 and bankruptcy, really don't know how good we have it today.

 

Agreed.....let's get a little FUPM going!

 

14 from Dec 16 to May 17
And 11 more will be announced by Year end

 

Do you really think after banding 767-400 with 747-400 ALPA really has a snow ball's chance in hell to hold out for more money? We lost this battle in 2010.

Moving on, does it have a real crew bunk?

 

Yes this airplane will have a crew rest pod above, the front galley. Two bunks and two seats.

 

Lost? Getting the 787-8 and 767-400 to pay 777 rates was a win. Its clear by looking at the rates at DL and AA that higher rates for the 787/764 did not effect the pay for the 777/747.

 

Don't get me started on pay banding, I fly a widebody for narrow body pay. The airplane I'm flying has six seats less than a 787-800 but pays $30/hr less. Block time today will be 10:25. UAL isn't parking the 767-300 anytime in the next contract cycle either.

Should we pay 787 less too? Should we pay 767-400 less too? NUTZ!

Politics trumps logic every time.

 

they had to draw the line somewhere. they couldn't bump ALL the Continental international light twins up to the United seven four seven four hundred pay rates. so they drew the line down the middle of the 767. doesn't make any sense. but neither does any of the pay banding. airbus pilots get different rates leg by leg (320 v 319) when the planes are nearly identical

one (unnoticed, i think) huge consequence of the banding is that in the future each plane will be a microcosm of the seniority list. pilots will have less of the old choice between pay or senior bidding ; now, and onward, the senior folks will hold the top third of the list on each jet. because the incentive is removed to sacrifice schedule for another training visit and more pay.
good for the company, no doubt. good for senior folks. but junior people better enjoy flying weekends/holidays. forever

 

I'm not sure what you mean by 'Continental international light twins', but memory tells me the CAL 767-200, paid same as-300 and 777 which was paying more than the UAL 747 in 2008.

 

yep that's what i meant