flyguppy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2003
- Posts
- 130
I think you get the point.
I admit, I honestly give the UAL guys a "pass" for the 2003 contract vote and the fact the aircraft were banded together then. I get that.
My issue is more with the Bankruptcy Exit LOA and why the snapback wasn't attained then. There was no "threat" of bankruptcy then. The leverage was more in the pilot groups hands. IOW, I can get why UAL guys "caved" on the contract, but for the life of me can't figure out why on the LOA
Couple that with fact that the new UAL combined fleet will have 3X as many 777s than 744s, the 744s will not be around as long, and the overall pay effect will benefit more pilots vs just those staffed on the 744. This is what makes the 744 issue look more like a seniority grab to those that are arguing that.
I can't for the life of me see why we would exhaust negotiating capital to benefit less than 10% of the pilot group when we could potentially benefit 2-3X as many.
I'm just sayin'.
But what you're not "just sayin' " is the seniority grab is coming from the CAL side.
The 747 and 777 will be banded. The UAL MEC has basically come out and said that they were willing to concede that. The rumor of some sort of resolution that the UAL MEC said the 747 must be paid more is absolute BS.
But, what will NOT be conceded is the CAL MEC insistence that the 767-400 be in the same pay band as the 747/777. Trying to influence the SLI by saying that the 767-400 is paid the same, therefore somehow equal in seniority consideration as the 747/777. Inexcusable.
Talk about a "seniority grab".