How low in wages would a pilot go?

[chipmunn]

[P][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]767jetz:[/FONT][/P]
[P][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]The information was posted in the WSJ, now the New York Times, and Air Inc. The information provided average pay for First Officers after five years and for top end pay. The numbers are generally correct, but may not factor in pay for night differential and international pay. Regardless, the numbers are reasonably correct, but can be different dependent on equipment and differential pay.[/FONT][/P]
[P][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Thanks for your comments, but with all due respect I disagree with your statements. By the way, why so you posst more on the US board than the UA board?[/FONT][/P]
[P][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Chip[/FONT][/P]

 

[767jetz]

-

 

[767jetz]

To all,

Would anyone else around here like Chip to share an apples to apples comparison of his compensation to that of other airlines, rather than the inaccurate chart he posted????????????

I have supplied an example of typical UA wages on A320 and 737 aircraft. Yet Chip refuses to address my request for a comparison.

Could it be that if he did, it may show that his compensation is not that far off from his counterparts at the largest airlines in the world?

Anyone??

 

[AOG-N-IT]

767jetz, Yes I would love to see an accurate account. I would love to see Chip stop telling all the other labor groups about his concept of fair too. I couldn't careless about what the company and ALPA deemed as fair according to Chip's post. I'm sure they all see thier position as above reproach. IMHO ALPA is directly in bed with management. I share an alike view regarding the IAM too...but they just happen to be only smart enough to be a danger to those they represent. I also believe they are completely out for themselves!! I think they well get a formal education, if this company lasts long enough for AMFA to be voted in too. Chip is always a great source for news..and I appreciate that aspect about him!! I also think Chip is all for Chip too. He's a true Politician..and doing everything possible to insure his life after his days of handling the Joy Stick are over. There is actually nothing wrong with trying to feather your own nest, but being nothing more than a un-solicited Joeseph Goebels mouthpiece for the company and it's views , He's really begining to sicken me! I will always enjoy reading the latest installments of the Chip's Cockpit Confidentials , but I'm always going to be enough of a free thinking person to know when I'm reading the Parties Manefesto..and someones self-serving diatribe too. I will never expect to see anything from Chip , that isn't slanted entirely in his own favor. You shouldn't hold your breath waiting on something to the contrary either. If you do?...You will be as blue as the upper half of our aircraft .

 

[AOG-N-IT]

Deleted for a DOUBLE POST.....AOG-N-IT

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Those appear to be the HIGHEST paid categories. This is a reprint from another source, as ALPA would not approve of Chip publishing any of the actual numbers. As an Airbus 320 guy at U, I can tell you that UAL pays AT LEAST 25% more than U in both captain and F/O categories, and we fly the A321, with 30 or so more seats, as well as the 320 and 319. You guys are all ready to jump on Chip, but there are some things he just can't publish, and ALPA's pay rates are one of them. Actually, those numbers that Chip published for U appear MUCH higher than the actual ones as listed in the new 6 year contract. Plus, it looks like more bleeding may be on the way for us U folks.

 

[chipmunn]

[P][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]This thread of us against them or those who are less paid always asking for those more paid to provide a greater sacrifice, whether it's in management or the pilot group is as old as business itself. ALPA provided an enormous cost cut the greatest in the history of aviation that was significantly greater than the total of the remaining 90 percent of the employees took.[/FONT][/P]
[P][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Management and ALPA believe the pilot restructuring agreement was appropriate for the initial restructuring plan and have said they will not seek additional cuts. Meanwhile, with revenues deteriorating and if the DL, NW, & CO alliance is approved, which would cancel out much of the UA-US alliance benefits, the loan guarantee could be in jeopardy. If all unions do not want to provide additional concessions, the airline may be forced to further downsize and eliminate jobs and displace workers across-the-board, to qualify for the loan guarantee.[/FONT][/P]
[P][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]I find it interesting from a humanistic approach, some message board poster complained when other members of labor discussed restructuring agreements and the consequences surrounding a S.1113 hearing and now some of these same people are suggesting pilots take a greater cut. Why? So they can not have to take a cut and they can live in a socialized environment.[/FONT][/P]
[P][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]For those who make such claims, I would like to see you have the courage to identify yourself by name, but I doubt you would do that.[/FONT][/P]
[P][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Chip[/FONT][/P]

 

[767jetz]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/24/2002 10:15:30 AM oldiebutgoody wrote:

ALPA would not approve of Chip publishing any of the actual numbers. img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/6.gif']
----------------
[/blockquote]

Really? Since when? Pay rates are not some top secret info. UA's contract 2000 rates were posted all over the web before the ink was dry. Where do you think places like Air,Inc. or the media for that matter get their numbers from? The problem is not confidentiality. The problem is that compensation for pilots is so complicated, that you can not make generalizations and still be fair and accurate. The problem is when people take the info out of context without proper explanation to prove a point. The numbers can easily be skewed and the info becomes misleading.

I never said US pilots should take another hit, only that Chip should post a more accurate comparison in the interest of honesty and fairness to his fellow employees.

IMHO Chip has a tendancy to lean things in his favor when he tries to make a point. He does this on the UA board quite often.

 

[luv2fly]

[blockquote]
----------------
By the way, why so you posst more on the US board than the UA board?[/FONT][/P]

[FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Chip[/FONT][/P]
----------------
[/blockquote]

You are hardly in a position to question others as to why they spend so much time on other boards. You yourself appear many times on the UA board. My question is, why should it matter? These boards are for discussions relating to aviation. I don't remember reading any stipulations that required someone to remain in a particular forum.

 

[767jetz]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/24/2002 10:01:08 AM chipmunn wrote:


[FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]767jetz:[/FONT][/P]


[FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]The information was posted in the WSJ, now the New York Times, and Air Inc. The information provided average pay for First Officers after five years and for top end pay. The numbers are generally correct, but may not factor in pay for night differential and international pay. Regardless, the numbers are reasonably correct, but can be different dependent on equipment and differential pay.[/FONT][/P]

767jetz says:They may be generally correct, but comparing the max pay of a 747-400 captain at UA or a 777 captain at Delta (which there is a very small percentage of) to the pay of an A320 or 737 captain at US, (which makes up a majority of the left seat postions at the #7 airline) is misleading at best. By posting that chart, you were trying to persuade your fellow employees that you are compensated far below your couterparts at other airlines, and this is not true. I think if you want to make that point, you should be comparing apples to apples.


[FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Thanks for your comments, but with all due respect I disagree with your statements. By the way, why so you posst more on the US board than the UA board?[/FONT][/P]




767jetz says: Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! I'll make you a deal, I'll stop posting here if you stay away from the UA board. But what fun would that be?

 

[Lakeguy67]

[P]Talk about fair and labor friendly, the IAM, ALPA and AFA had a labor coalition and all unions agreed not to agree to the medical insurance yet as the IAM was looking into something better. The IAM had found better insurance and cheaper rates then what US Airways proposed, before the IAM could show it to the other labor groups ALPA signed off on the insurance, therefore forcing it upon us all. ALPA and AFA screwed their retirees as the IAM did not, we took higher employee costs so those on a FIXED income would not suffer.[/P]
[P]How is it fair that an employee who makes one hundred thousand dollars or more (much more) force the $40,000 and under employees to pay the same for insurance as does the one hundred thousand dollars + compensanted employee?[/P]
[P]Answer that Chip![/P]

 

[chipmunn]

767jetz said: IMHO Chip has a tendancy to lean things in his favor when he tries to make a point. He does this on the UA board quite often.

Chip comments: I rarely view the UA board, infrequently post, and normally only post a breaking news event. 767, if you look closely you can count on one or maybe both hands the number of times I have posted discussion comments on the UA boards.

Lakeguy67: How is it fair that an employee who makes one hundred thousand dollars or more (much more) force the $40,000 and under employees to pay the same for insurance as does the one hundred thousand dollars + compensanted employee?

Chip answers: Lakeguy, the company elected to have a nationwide PPO with three options for all employees to drive down benefit costs. Your comment is the same as the other “socializedâ€￾ pay and benefit comments that higher paid employees should give more so lower employees should give less. Again, for the pilots, 10 percent of the employees who represent 30 percent of the payroll have provided 60 percent of the cuts. What’s enough for you? Should the pilots give 70 percent, 80 percent, 90 percent or 100 percent of the cuts? Meanwhile, 90 percent of the employees who represent 70 percent of the total labor expense gave 40 percent of the concessions?

Nobody likes this situation and everybody has been hurt, but the reality is revenues have deteriorated industry-wide and if the DOT approves the three-way alliance, both the UA & US loan guarantees are at risk. These are facts and not something we can readily change; therefore, if we want the company to survive there may have to be additional cuts to meet the 7 percent profit margin required by the ATSB.

I do not believe the company would do this, but management does have the option to file a S.1113 motion to obtain across-the-board deeper labor cuts if necessary, to save the company.

With other potential Equity Plan Sponsors reviewing corporate data this week, who may or may not be labor friendly; as well as on-going discussions with aircraft lessors to provide more cuts, we should know more very shortly with the third Omnibus Hearing next Thursday, November 7.

Chip

 

[Lakeguy67]

Chip, you are forcing the lower paid employees to give up bigger percerntages then higher paid employees. The IAM found a national PPO with better coverage and cheaper costs to the employees. If you make $200,000 a year and I make $40,000 a year, I use more of my income to pay for insurance then you do, that is not fair, becuase a loaf of bread still costs the same.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

[blockquote]
----------------

IMHO Chip has a tendancy to lean things in his favor when he tries to make a point. He does this on the UA board quite often.

----------------
[/blockquote]
Oh, and you don't?

 

[Lakeguy67]

Chip, since section 1113 has been enacted no court has let any company impose deeper cuts. Last year AMR went to court seeking deeper cuts in all the labor groups at TWA who had agreed upon section 1113 letters and the judge said no.