Anyone else get a phone call from United today?

[Lear70]

What about future hires? Why not DROP first year pay and eliminate health care all together in order to add to your seemingly very finite amount of negotiating capital? Why not make the first 3 years at $hitty pay to even further raise pay and benefits for the top 2/3 of the list? Management laughs at the unions quick acceptance of first year pay as a 2 shot technical for them even before the game has started. "Doesn't affect me. Who cares?"

I'm sorry... I didn't realize you'd been reading our T.A. here at AirTran.

Seriously, that's exactly what they did. Robbed the new-hires by dropping them $4.00 an hour and robbed the retirees by no longer paying their portion of the health insurance (which makes premiums a MINIMUM of $1,000 a month, mostly higher for most pilots), and gutted the reserve scheduling section to allow them to staff fewer bodies on reserve (Movable-Days-Off).

All that money is what makes up the BULK of the pay raises the senior pilots saw.

I disagree with the whole "finite bargaining power" approach to negotiations. When you first enter negotiations, you should put COLA raises on the table as a zero-bargaining item, meaning, the company has to give you those before you even START to talk about other areas of the contract.

The cost of fuel goes up. The cost of catering supplies goes up. The costs of leases go up. They don't get "concessions" from those vendors, it's just a fact of life that prices go up for airlines and they raise fares to compensate, just like everyone else.

If your airline is profitable (not in bankruptcy or bleeding cash), there's absolutely ZERO reason they should expect employee salaries to stay flat when nothing else does. COLA is NOT a bargaining chip. Anything above COLA? Certainly, has to be negotiated for. But not the basic cost of living raise.

This is where negotiating committees go astray and where Management now thinks they can get away with that at-will.

 

[iaflyer]

Everything most of you are saying is absolutely true. However, when a negotiating committee sits down to negotiate they have a huge list of things that they could potentially negotiate - pay rates obviously - vacation - scheduling - hotels - scope - base transfers - seat locks - training pay - retirement - travel benefits - displacements - furlough - etc - etc.

You only have a very finite amount of negotiating capital and when it comes down to it, you prioritize based on what would have the largest impact on the largest number of your members.

Let me put it to you this way - what would you be willing to not get/give up, and how far would you be willing to go (strike?) to get the first year pay up at YOUR CURRENT airline.

At our place we just got a new contract - it gave those on 1st year pay a nice raise - everyone got a 6% raise but the first year guys got almost 40% - they went from $40 per hour to $57 per hour.

No one I talked to was pissed that the new-hires got such a pay raise - people said it was nice they got a livable wage the first year. You don't have to screw the new hires for everyone to get a pay raise.

 

[JetFumes]

Come on Hvy - It makes him feel better about himself! If an ignorant post or two on an anonymous message board helps Mr. Fumes work out his insecurities, who are we to begrudge him that?

Did not expect to see so many guys with no sense of humor. JetBlue gets teased all of the time, thought turnabout was fair play, guess not. Anyway, can someone tell why me they would go to UAL to one year pay. Whats the carrot, what are you thinking. Its going to get better? If so, why.

 

[igneousy2]

At our place we just got a new contract - it gave those on 1st year pay a nice raise - everyone got a 6% raise but the first year guys got almost 40% - they went from $40 per hour to $57 per hour.

No one I talked to was pissed that the new-hires got such a pay raise - people said it was nice they got a livable wage the first year. You don't have to screw the new hires for everyone to get a pay raise.

I never said it couldn't be done. You must be either flying corporate or freight to get a pay raise like that. In the the pax major airline world I don't think it would be possible to get a wage increase like that as long as their was a Republican president in the white-house. The airlines know that in todays environment it will be almost impossible to get released to self-help.

Again, What would you be willing to not get/give up, and how far would you be willing to go (strike?) to get the first year pay up at YOUR CURRENT airline. Especially - consider the fact that at almost every major pax airline - the rank and file have taken HUGE hits in pay.

What would the reaction of your pilots have been if the new hires got 40% and everybody else got 1-2 or zero?

Later

 

[igneousy2]

iaflyer - just realized you are a freight-dog from "connie"

I would bet in your carriers situation that the company wanted the first year pay up more than the pilots.

later

 

[pilotyip]

Yea the Kaliatta new hires are now at the same rate as a USA Jet DC-9 F/O, $57.12/hr

 

[waveflyer]

Igneousy-

How is averaging the first 5 years of FO pay a concession for management? It's the same amount of money- why would management care how it's divided up? Why would that have to be negotiated at all?

Is there any pilot in the world that wouldn't sacrifice making $100/hour in the 5th year to avoid making $31/hour in the 1st. It's the same total money- i'd rather have a consistent $70/hour - and raises could still come by transitioning to bigger a/c.

Again- i would find much more security in knowing that if i lose my job - my next job will still be fairly high paying- We'll be punished enough by losing seniority- at least we'll still make a good wage by society standards.

If pilots can get better with money- save their own strike fund- and have the security of knowing 1st year pay isn't below the poverty level in most large cities- we can all take stands that we can't do now.

It's all about setting the stage for 2008. UPS didn't have any luck with this administration either.

 

[PCL_128]

How about the guys that are already on 4th year pay? Their payrate would have to drop for that year and the following year because the new average would be weighted down towards the earlier years. Using your SWA example with a blended rate of $93/hr, a 5th year FO at SWA would see his rate drop from $119/hr. That's about $30,000 in concessions for him so that the newhires can have a better first 5 years. Kind of hard to swallow.

 

[iaflyer]

What would the reaction of your pilots have been if the new hires got 40% and everybody else got 1-2 or zero?

Honestly, I don't know. Sure, there was some grumbling that we weren't getting a big enough pay raise, but I never heard people complaining that the first year guys were "taking" it away from us.

If I heard a 15 year Captain saying that, I'd respond with - so you want some of these new hires and guys sitting in the right sit thinking about whether they can pay their mortgage than how this approach is doing? Sure, everyone has earned the pay that comes with their seniority but to make first year pay SO low is tough. I expect that places like United/NWA/Continental might not get some of the most experienced guys, only because they can't/don't want to take the pay cut.

As for the company wanting to up the first year pay - perhaps, I wasn't at the negotiating table. However our contract allows the company to modify first year pay to whatever they want - without having to negotiate it. So they could of done it anytime they wanted if they felt they need to.

 

[waveflyer]

How about the guys that are already on 4th year pay? Their payrate would have to drop for that year and the following year because the new average would be weighted down towards the earlier years. Using your SWA example with a blended rate of $93/hr, a 5th year FO at SWA would see his rate drop from $119/hr. That's about $30,000 in concessions for him so that the newhires can have a better first 5 years. Kind of hard to swallow.

Don't set it up that way- Let the people hired in AFTER the new contract come in at the new rate... That kind of inverse grandfathering happens all the time...There's a solution- but not if noone thinks it's important.

The point is NOT about making NEW HIRES LIFE MORE COMFORTABLE- We up 1st year pay everywhere to give us ALL a better negotiating stance...

NOT ONE PILOT STRUGGLES. Look out for the bottom guy everywhere and the senior pilots will be taken care of- Sell out the junior guy- and that will eventually reach the senior as well. Bind together as aviators- None of this civilian v military, wide v narrow body, senior v junior, regional v major sh*t- and that sends a message to management's everywhere that we are not going to sell anyone out- that we all deserve to make a livable wage- C'mon- management's have gone after regional payrates-- That should teach us all that we will never make a low enough amount.

You know someone once told me-- Pilots are the stupidest smart people you'll ever meet- i think they'd rather be the highest paid at $90k than the lowest paid at a $100k. We should be doing what's in our best interests LONG term.

You've already agreed that upping first year pay would be a good thing for ALL pilots- why do you keep coming up with excuses not to do it?

 

[PCL_128]

Don't set it up that way- Let the people hired in AFTER the new contract come in at the new rate...

You've already agreed that upping first year pay would be a good thing for ALL pilots- why do you keep coming up with excuses not to do it?

Not trying to make excuses, just trying to work through all of the potential problems. That's the problem that many line pilots have: they want instant solutions without thinking things through completely. The average union rep, on the other hand, sees the pitfalls, and wants to work through them and make sure that mistakes aren't made.

I think your idea has promise. Using the new "blended" scale for newhires while continuing the graduated scale for guys already on property would probably work. I still think that you'll have to give up in other areas quite a bit to make this happen, though, so it's up to the pilots to decide whether the benefits outweigh the negatives. I think you should bring this idea forward at your next Local Council meeting in the form of a resolution directing the MEC to study the idea. Perhaps they'll determine that it would be a worthwhile tactic during their next set of negotiations. Everything starts with the line pilot. Talking about it on flightinfo won't get it moving. You have to take action from within the structure of the union. That's how change is made.

 

[stall022]

I guess I’m crazier then I thought. I received this email about 2 days after the psych test. it's back to the loony bin/mesa for the next 24 months for me.....


.......Thank you for your interest in the pilot position with United Airlines. At this time, we have other candidates who more closely meet our requirements. You are welcome to reapply for consideration 24 months from the date of this correspondence.

We wish you the best in your future endeavors.

Best regards,
Human Resources Department
United Airlines......

 

[PCL_128]

24 months?!? Are these guys crazy? They'll be lucky if they get enough candidates to fill classes for the first 12 months. By 24 months they'll be hiring kids right out of high school. "Best of the best," indeed.

 

[Z_Pilot]

24 MOS!?!

Daaaaayumn.


I got the "call us M-F 8 to 4" email.
I was sure I was looney. (Maybe I am for applying to UAL)

Anyways, I am calling tomorrow.

I am in the blind folks, help....!

The last update on the WFFF gouge is from 1999....

 

[Z_Pilot]

5000TT, 2000 PIC tubine, ATP, Evaluator, no internal rec. I Took the psyc test and got the email a couple of days after the test saying "We are closely assessing your application with United Airlines" It basically goes on to say thanks but we'll call you if needed, I think???

Wait a few days and let us know if they send you the "call us this week" email.

ZP