Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
DiamondFlyer wrote:14.5% over 2 years doesn't even keep up with inflation, what a joke. All this is at this point is, the MEC approved making it a TA. Membership would still get to vote yes/no.
24Whiskey wrote:DiamondFlyer wrote:14.5% over 2 years doesn't even keep up with inflation, what a joke. All this is at this point is, the MEC approved making it a TA. Membership would still get to vote yes/no.
The CRJ-550 weight increase alone warrants a no vote. So much for no scope changes…
LAXSTEW wrote:Anyone know if they retained Positive Space for commuting?
LAXSTEW wrote:Anyone know if they retained Positive Space for commuting?
24Whiskey wrote:DiamondFlyer wrote:14.5% over 2 years doesn't even keep up with inflation, what a joke. All this is at this point is, the MEC approved making it a TA. Membership would still get to vote yes/no.
The CRJ-550 weight increase alone warrants a no vote. So much for no scope changes…
sldispatcher wrote:24Whiskey wrote:DiamondFlyer wrote:14.5% over 2 years doesn't even keep up with inflation, what a joke. All this is at this point is, the MEC approved making it a TA. Membership would still get to vote yes/no.
The CRJ-550 weight increase alone warrants a no vote. So much for no scope changes…
Oh for goodness sake. For those of us in markets that 50 - 76 seat jets are the only viable option, what do you propose as the 50 seat ERJ 145's and CRJ200's age out to provide service? The caps are still there.
I am generally behind the pilots on almost all issues until they take a knife and want to continue to make more cities lose air service. I'm really shocked that with the wage increases on the regional side that mainline United is not ready just to take over all of these EMB 175 series and CRJ550 series and be done with it.
Just don't forget us small city folks who pay double the airfare to support that 14.5% increase is all we are asking.
sldispatcher wrote:24Whiskey wrote:The CRJ-550 weight increase alone warrants a no vote. So much for no scope changes…
I'm really shocked that with the wage increases on the regional side that mainline United is not ready just to take over all of these EMB 175 series and CRJ550 series and be done with it.
UPlog wrote:Seems like a pragmatic agreement that provides benefits for both sides.
The two-year term provides a bridge to negotiate something more ambitious.
DiamondFlyer wrote:14.5% over 2 years doesn't even keep up with inflation, what a joke. All this is at this point is, the MEC approved making it a TA. Membership would still get to vote yes/no.
CairnterriAIR wrote:You want to see who’s salaries are not keeping up with inflation? Ask anybody in customer service, health care, retail, teaching….
LAXintl wrote:Its a T/A that must be approved by members
Here is detail summary
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FWBZOO7X0AI ... ame=medium
jaybird wrote:Why is a 2-year agreement bad? Is that out-of-the-norm for a pilot contract? I'm asking for clarity because I don't know what the norm is. Thanks ..
24Whiskey wrote:sldispatcher wrote:24Whiskey wrote:The CRJ-550 weight increase alone warrants a no vote. So much for no scope changes…
I'm really shocked that with the wage increases on the regional side that mainline United is not ready just to take over all of these EMB 175 series and CRJ550 series and be done with it.
I agree. I don’t want small city air service to be affected.
I just think they shouldn’t be flown with planes that say Express, Connection or Eagle on the side anymore. Make a reasonable rate that allows for seniority progression at the mainline carrier for both the pilots and flight attendants.
zuckie13 wrote:24Whiskey wrote:sldispatcher wrote:
I'm really shocked that with the wage increases on the regional side that mainline United is not ready just to take over all of these EMB 175 series and CRJ550 series and be done with it.
I agree. I don’t want small city air service to be affected.
I just think they shouldn’t be flown with planes that say Express, Connection or Eagle on the side anymore. Make a reasonable rate that allows for seniority progression at the mainline carrier for both the pilots and flight attendants.
The question is - can you get the airlines to move away from looking at the profitability of each flight/route as opposed to the network as a whole. Right now they are loathe to pay the crew more on the 50/76 seat planes because the revenue from those won't pay for more. Would take a fundamental change in how airlines do their finance so they can take a cut of the money made on wide-bodies flying to Europe to pay the crew flying a 50 seater from Smallcity, USA to a hub.
24Whiskey wrote:LAXSTEW wrote:Anyone know if they retained Positive Space for commuting?
strangeplanes wrote:Can technology replace the 2nd pilot in <50 seaters?
LCDFlight wrote:Asking for a friend, what is median total compensation for mainline capt and FO these days.. 300 and 200? Clearly the high end has moved above 300 and is aiming for 500. Asking because there are many types of compensation in these bargaining situations, retirement payments, profit sharing etc.
Cardude2 wrote:strangeplanes wrote:Can technology replace the 2nd pilot in <50 seaters?
soon https://theaircurrent.com/technology/fe ... airliners/
LCDFlight wrote:Asking because there are many types of compensation in these bargaining situations, retirement payments, profit sharing etc.
DreamDriver wrote:LCDFlight wrote:Asking because there are many types of compensation in these bargaining situations, retirement payments, profit sharing etc.
That's true, and unfortunately few were explored here. Not much of what you mentioned changes. But, United gets concessions all over the place for very little in return. It works out to a 9% pay gain over what will be a nearly decade long cycle. 2019, +4 years to get here, 2 year contract, plus four years to get to a new contract at that point. It's so bad its almost laughable. So, send it back, and do what Delta did with their contract a few years ago. Recall the JV squad of "negotiators", and bring in a new squad, get closer to what is desired. Absolutely nothing to lose....
zuckie13 wrote:24Whiskey wrote:sldispatcher wrote:
I'm really shocked that with the wage increases on the regional side that mainline United is not ready just to take over all of these EMB 175 series and CRJ550 series and be done with it.
I agree. I don’t want small city air service to be affected.
I just think they shouldn’t be flown with planes that say Express, Connection or Eagle on the side anymore. Make a reasonable rate that allows for seniority progression at the mainline carrier for both the pilots and flight attendants.
The question is - can you get the airlines to move away from looking at the profitability of each flight/route as opposed to the network as a whole. Right now they are loathe to pay the crew more on the 50/76 seat planes because the revenue from those won't pay for more. Would take a fundamental change in how airlines do their finance so they can take a cut of the money made on wide-bodies flying to Europe to pay the crew flying a 50 seater from Smallcity, USA to a hub.
strfyr51 wrote:zuckie13 wrote:24Whiskey wrote:
I agree. I don’t want small city air service to be affected.
I just think they shouldn’t be flown with planes that say Express, Connection or Eagle on the side anymore. Make a reasonable rate that allows for seniority progression at the mainline carrier for both the pilots and flight attendants.
The question is - can you get the airlines to move away from looking at the profitability of each flight/route as opposed to the network as a whole. Right now they are loathe to pay the crew more on the 50/76 seat planes because the revenue from those won't pay for more. Would take a fundamental change in how airlines do their finance so they can take a cut of the money made on wide-bodies flying to Europe to pay the crew flying a 50 seater from Smallcity, USA to a hub.
Each flight and route ARE part of the network just like each frame is part of a building, You wouldn't want a frame to be weak would you? Then why not have each route at least support it's investment to MAKE said route?? Or did I miss your reasoning??
24Whiskey wrote:DiamondFlyer wrote:14.5% over 2 years doesn't even keep up with inflation, what a joke. All this is at this point is, the MEC approved making it a TA. Membership would still get to vote yes/no.
The CRJ-550 weight increase alone warrants a no vote. So much for no scope changes…
Jetport wrote:24Whiskey wrote:DiamondFlyer wrote:14.5% over 2 years doesn't even keep up with inflation, what a joke. All this is at this point is, the MEC approved making it a TA. Membership would still get to vote yes/no.
The CRJ-550 weight increase alone warrants a no vote. So much for no scope changes…
What is the CRJ-550 weight increase, I don't see it in the post or link?
Jetport wrote:24Whiskey wrote:DiamondFlyer wrote:14.5% over 2 years doesn't even keep up with inflation, what a joke. All this is at this point is, the MEC approved making it a TA. Membership would still get to vote yes/no.
The CRJ-550 weight increase alone warrants a no vote. So much for no scope changes…
What is the CRJ-550 weight increase, I don't see it in the post or link?
In our real world of shoppers, savers, and workers, however, the aggregate inflation rates captured by CPI and PCE apply to everybody…and to nobody. Which of us, after all, is the “aggregate” American? It turns out your inflation and mine might be vastly different at the same moment.
The most regressive tax?
Inflation is generally thought to impose a greater burden on people with lower wealth and incomes, leading some to declare it “the most regressive tax” (including, with no intended irony, a tweet in late 2021 from the world’s richest person at the time, Elon Musk).
Surveying Americans in late 2021, Gallup found low-income households much more likely than higher-income ones to cite financial hardship from inflation (Figure 2). Nearly a third described it as a “severe” hardship “that affects your ability to maintain your current standard of living.”
Households with more money have more options to preserve that money’s value in the face of inflation. “They have access to financial markets,” said Minneapolis Fed Senior Research Economist Juan Pablo Nicolini. “They can have assets that pay interest. At the bottom of the income distribution, some people don’t even have bank accounts—they work on cash. These are the people who are hit the most.”
Research has also found lower-income households face greater inflation when shopping. Sam Schulhofer-Wohl, director of financial policy and outreach at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, analyzed the everyday spending of 50,000 U.S. households between 2003 and 2014 in a paper with University of Chicago economist (and Institute advisor) Greg Kaplan.
“Maybe you used to buy Yogurt A, and now you buy Yogurt B because Yogurt B is cheaper. But if you’re a lower-income family … the only place for you to go is not to have any yogurt.”
They found households with annual incomes below $20,000 experienced a median inflation rate 0.6 percentage points higher than households making more than $100,000. During the low-inflation period the economists studied, this means inflation was roughly one-third higher for the low-income families.
strfyr51 wrote:zuckie13 wrote:24Whiskey wrote:
I agree. I don’t want small city air service to be affected.
I just think they shouldn’t be flown with planes that say Express, Connection or Eagle on the side anymore. Make a reasonable rate that allows for seniority progression at the mainline carrier for both the pilots and flight attendants.
The question is - can you get the airlines to move away from looking at the profitability of each flight/route as opposed to the network as a whole. Right now they are loathe to pay the crew more on the 50/76 seat planes because the revenue from those won't pay for more. Would take a fundamental change in how airlines do their finance so they can take a cut of the money made on wide-bodies flying to Europe to pay the crew flying a 50 seater from Smallcity, USA to a hub.
Each flight and route ARE part of the network just like each frame is part of a building, You wouldn't want a frame to be weak would you? Then why not have each route at least support it's investment to MAKE said route?? Or did I miss your reasoning??
24Whiskey wrote:LAXSTEW wrote:Anyone know if they retained Positive Space for commuting?
Nope. They’ll get:
- A parking stipend increase from 35 to $60/month.
- Every new plane from now on has to have two pilot jumpseats installed - if available.
- A no-bump clause on the CRJ-550 jumpseat in response to the allowed MTOW increase.
Not exactly Earth shattering. The company would likely order two jumpseats anyways. I don’t think there’s that many commuters who depend on GoJet for work either.
capejet wrote:24Whiskey wrote:LAXSTEW wrote:Anyone know if they retained Positive Space for commuting?
Nope. They’ll get:
- A parking stipend increase from 35 to $60/month.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't pilots, flight attendants and airport agents get free parking at airports?
bigb wrote:capejet wrote:24Whiskey wrote:
Nope. They’ll get:
- A parking stipend increase from 35 to $60/month.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't pilots, flight attendants and airport agents get free parking at airports?
No….
DiamondFlyer wrote:DreamDriver wrote:LCDFlight wrote:Asking because there are many types of compensation in these bargaining situations, retirement payments, profit sharing etc.
That's true, and unfortunately few were explored here. Not much of what you mentioned changes. But, United gets concessions all over the place for very little in return. It works out to a 9% pay gain over what will be a nearly decade long cycle. 2019, +4 years to get here, 2 year contract, plus four years to get to a new contract at that point. It's so bad its almost laughable. So, send it back, and do what Delta did with their contract a few years ago. Recall the JV squad of "negotiators", and bring in a new squad, get closer to what is desired. Absolutely nothing to lose....
Personally, I think the MEC and NC sent it to vote, just to simply send a message to United that it's time to get serious in negotiations.
JoseSalazar wrote:Jetport wrote:24Whiskey wrote:
The CRJ-550 weight increase alone warrants a no vote. So much for no scope changes…
What is the CRJ-550 weight increase, I don't see it in the post or link?
Allow a CRJ 550 variant with a maximum weight of 69,750 (from 65,000)
o UA pilots cannot be denied jumpseat on the higher max weight CRJ 550 variant due to weight/balance
o The CRJ 550 variant range limited to 900 miles (ensures new added weight not used to extend range)
o CRJ 550 variant counts towards 50-seat RJ limits
Jetport wrote:JoseSalazar wrote:Jetport wrote:
What is the CRJ-550 weight increase, I don't see it in the post or link?
Allow a CRJ 550 variant with a maximum weight of 69,750 (from 65,000)
o UA pilots cannot be denied jumpseat on the higher max weight CRJ 550 variant due to weight/balance
o The CRJ 550 variant range limited to 900 miles (ensures new added weight not used to extend range)
o CRJ 550 variant counts towards 50-seat RJ limits
Thanks for the information. I assume the MTOW increase will essentially solve all weight problems with the CRJ-550 considering the 900 mile limit on flying, am I correct?
DreamDriver wrote:DiamondFlyer wrote:DreamDriver wrote:
That's true, and unfortunately few were explored here. Not much of what you mentioned changes. But, United gets concessions all over the place for very little in return. It works out to a 9% pay gain over what will be a nearly decade long cycle. 2019, +4 years to get here, 2 year contract, plus four years to get to a new contract at that point. It's so bad its almost laughable. So, send it back, and do what Delta did with their contract a few years ago. Recall the JV squad of "negotiators", and bring in a new squad, get closer to what is desired. Absolutely nothing to lose....
Personally, I think the MEC and NC sent it to vote, just to simply send a message to United that it's time to get serious in negotiations.
Interesting concept. It’s so bad I actually thought the same thing, but why go through with all that and run the risk of it passing? 50.1% is all it takes. Seems like a lot of wasted time so maybe the negotiators went the easy route and thus missed the mark. Opinions I’m hearing across fleets and age groups is that it is massively underwhelming considering our ceo just said the market will show a hockey stick type of recovery. ………./ Pilots at other airlines are equally horrified as they are up next and are hoping for a strong contract at UA.
24Whiskey wrote:How many commuters are solely reliant on a 550? Is it even in the double digits?