1st UA 773 ER >>>
10-31-2016, 03:42 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Position: The GF of FUPM
Posts: 3,073
Random thoughts -
I see that the new 777 has the word 'ETOPS' on the nose gear door. That's great! It's about time that UA finally gets some ETOPS triples!
"Decision 80-Whaaat? Will that require reading on my part? Say, have you seen the new airplane trading cards???!!!"
BusCap, thanks for trying. But, I gently and respectfully suggest that you don't hold your breath.
I see that the new 777 has the word 'ETOPS' on the nose gear door. That's great! It's about time that UA finally gets some ETOPS triples!
"Decision 80-Whaaat? Will that require reading on my part? Say, have you seen the new airplane trading cards???!!!"
BusCap, thanks for trying. But, I gently and respectfully suggest that you don't hold your breath.
10-31-2016, 03:52 PM
#42
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2012
Posts: 216
Originally Posted by oldmako
Random thoughts -
I see that the new 777 has the word 'ETOPS' on the nose gear door. That's great! It's about time that UA finally gets some ETOPS triples!
"Decision 80-Whaaat? Will that require reading on my part? Say, have you seen the new airplane trading cards???!!!"
BusCap, thanks for trying. But, I gently and respectfully suggest that you don't hold your breath.
I see that the new 777 has the word 'ETOPS' on the nose gear door. That's great! It's about time that UA finally gets some ETOPS triples!
"Decision 80-Whaaat? Will that require reading on my part? Say, have you seen the new airplane trading cards???!!!"
BusCap, thanks for trying. But, I gently and respectfully suggest that you don't hold your breath.
I'll try. 😉
10-31-2016, 04:54 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 163
Originally Posted by C11DCA
The problem of the size (usually as determined by MTOW weight) and speed pay equation is modern technology.
Same or larger planes now weigh less then their predecessors. See A350-1000 vs 777-300er. The Airbus has a 94,000 lb lighter MTOW for the same dimension aircraft. So consideration of capabilities beyond just size need to be factored in.
I don't have an issue with pay banding, if the bands actually made sense. In my ideal world, if banding were used:
Super Jumbos (A380/747-8i class)
Large Widebodies (777/787/A350)
Small Widebodies (767 all variants)
Large narrowbody (757-200 and -300/A321)
Medium narrowbody (all 737, all 320, C series etc)
Small narrowbody (anything smaller then above)
Same or larger planes now weigh less then their predecessors. See A350-1000 vs 777-300er. The Airbus has a 94,000 lb lighter MTOW for the same dimension aircraft. So consideration of capabilities beyond just size need to be factored in.
I don't have an issue with pay banding, if the bands actually made sense. In my ideal world, if banding were used:
Super Jumbos (A380/747-8i class)
Large Widebodies (777/787/A350)
Small Widebodies (767 all variants)
Large narrowbody (757-200 and -300/A321)
Medium narrowbody (all 737, all 320, C series etc)
Small narrowbody (anything smaller then above)
10-31-2016, 04:58 PM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
Originally Posted by davessn763
787 seats only six more pax than the 767-300, and fewer seats than the 767-400. Why not band the 767 up?
XOXO
J POS
10-31-2016, 07:18 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: 320 Captain
Posts: 634
Originally Posted by davessn763
787 seats only six more pax than the 767-300, and fewer seats than the 767-400. Why not band the 767 up?
If you want to do a strict, per individual airplane pay scale that reflects performance (range/speed) and size (using MTOW as the determinant), then it would look something like this.
747-400
777-300er
A350-1000
777-200
787-9/787-10 (same MTOW of -9, but larger with less range)
787-8
767-400
767-300
757-300
757-200
737-900
737-800
A320
A319
737-700
If you go strictly by seats then it would change to something like this:
https://flyingtogether.ual.com/web/C...leetCodes.xlsx
747 (374 seats)
777-300 (366 seats)
777-200 (Hawaii configuration-364 seats)
A350-1000 (unknown but anticipating around 330)
787-10 (unknown but it's larger then the -9, Boeing claims 323)
777-200 (266-269 depending on 2 class or 3 class)
787-9 (252)
767-400 (242)
757-300 (with slimline=231)
787-8 (219)
767-300 (2 class-214)
757-300 (non slimline-213)
767-300 (3 class-183)
737-900 (slimline-179)
757-200 (RR version-169)
737-800 (slimline-166 )
A320 (150)
757-200 (PS-142)
A319 (128)
737-700 (slimline 126, 118 without)
As you can see there are seating variations even within the same airframe. You sure you want to pay by seating configuration?
DC
10-31-2016, 08:54 PM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
"Look at UPS they used the current fleet make up to decide which aircraft was the average of it's fleet, then based the pay rate off the productivity of that airplane. So productivity was part of that equation."
History lesson; UPS started their flight department after UAL parked their dedicate DC8 feighter fleet in the 80s. They started their flight department with UAL pilots (scabs I believe), wore the exact same brown color, cut and style uniform that UAL pilots wore before the 85 strike. Even their flight bags were mirrors of UAL down to the plate with the pilot's initials on the ends.
The point is they benefited and lived under the umbrella of pay established by the majors in the late sixties and early 70s when jets took over the skies and pay with them. Think of the change from the productivity of a DC6 compared to a 707 or DC8 and then came the Whale, 747. Gross weight and airspeed brought on the money.
We even got over-water pay and night pay because of the danger and stress involved with those ops. But on the negative side, since it was based on gross weight eacch model of the same airplane paid different. At UAL we had three different 727 model, each with a different MTOG and each a different hourly pay. S/O kept pay sheet for every leg and turned it in at end of trip.
BTW it was never about how many seats a plane could have installed, gross weight. The 787 560,000 while the 747-400 875,000 and the DC6 107,000 & 273 knots. Oh DC6 had 40-80 passengers.
Quit trying to justify how useful you all are in the world, gross weight and airspeed, put your money there.
History lesson; UPS started their flight department after UAL parked their dedicate DC8 feighter fleet in the 80s. They started their flight department with UAL pilots (scabs I believe), wore the exact same brown color, cut and style uniform that UAL pilots wore before the 85 strike. Even their flight bags were mirrors of UAL down to the plate with the pilot's initials on the ends.
The point is they benefited and lived under the umbrella of pay established by the majors in the late sixties and early 70s when jets took over the skies and pay with them. Think of the change from the productivity of a DC6 compared to a 707 or DC8 and then came the Whale, 747. Gross weight and airspeed brought on the money.
We even got over-water pay and night pay because of the danger and stress involved with those ops. But on the negative side, since it was based on gross weight eacch model of the same airplane paid different. At UAL we had three different 727 model, each with a different MTOG and each a different hourly pay. S/O kept pay sheet for every leg and turned it in at end of trip.
BTW it was never about how many seats a plane could have installed, gross weight. The 787 560,000 while the 747-400 875,000 and the DC6 107,000 & 273 knots. Oh DC6 had 40-80 passengers.
Quit trying to justify how useful you all are in the world, gross weight and airspeed, put your money there.
11-01-2016, 06:54 AM
#50
Stuck Mic
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,059
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
undflyboy06
Flight Schools and Training
4
09-22-2006 07:52 PM
