The following is the second of two articles illustrating significant issues with management’s pay banding proposal. Although at times, this becomes a technical numbers discussion, readers are urged to read and re-read as necessary to fully understand the significant pay cuts hidden in the proposal. While reducing unnecessary training expenses is a worthy endeavor, that will NOT be the primary result of management’s proposal. No other pilot group has ever agreed to this form of pay banding.
Be very aware of the fine print in management’s pay banding proposal...
Management proposes in their 1113 proposal that aircraft that have an FAA maximum certificated seat configuration of fifty (50) percent or less of the difference between the highest FAA maximum certificated seat configured aircraft in one Group and the lowest FAA maximum certificated seat configured aircraft in the next higher Group will be placed in the next lower Group. Aircraft that have an FAA maximum certificated seat configuration of greater than fifty (50) percent of the difference between the highest configured aircraft in one Group and the lowest configured aircraft in the next higher Group will be placed in the higher Group.
Their proposal has grouped the A321 in Group III, the same Group as the MD80 and the 737-800. The MD80 is configured for a seating capacity of 140 passengers at American Airlines and according to the Boeing website has an FAA maximum certificated seating configuration of 152 seats in a two class configuration and 172 seats in a single class configuration. The 737-800 is configured for a seating capacity of 160 passengers at American Airlines and has an FAA maximum certificated seating configuration of 162 seats in a two class configuration and 189 seats in a single class configuration.
The first important item to note is that management’s proposal does not state which FAA maximum seating configuration will be used, the two class configuration or single class configuration?
Under management’s proposal, Group IV would contain the 757-200. The 757-200 is configured for a seating capacity of 188 passengers at American Airlines and according to the Boeing website, has an FAA maximum certificated seating configuration of 200 seats in a two class configuration and 228 seats in a single class configuration.
According to the Airbus website the A321 has an FAA maximum certificated seating configuration of 185 seats in a two class configuration and 220 seats in a single class configuration.
When comparing FAA maximum seating configurations, management’s new proposed methodology for determining pay rates, the A321 has a maximum seating configuration of 185/220 (two class/single class), the 757 has a maximum seating configuration of 200/228, the 737-800 has a maximum seating configuration of 162/189 and the MD80 has a maximum seating configuration of 152/172.
Comparing the A321 to the 757, 737-800 and the MD80, the A321 maximum seating configuration of 220 is much closer to the 757 maximum seating configuration of 228 than it is to the MD80 maximum seating configuration of 172. However, management proposes to include the A321 in Group III with the MD80 and pay an MD80 pay rate and not to include it in Group IV and pay a 757 pay rate.
Management is proposing that APA abandon a decades old methodology of negotiating individual pay rates for aircraft and accept a methodology based on seating configuration and then within the very same proposal they ignore their own methodology.
Management then developed a new lower paying group, Group II, and placed the A319 in it. Their reasoning? It has a lower seating configuration than the MD80 and the 737-800. Now they follow their new methodology but only when it provides the ability to lower pay rates. As you can see there is no consistency. Once again, this calls into question the credibility of those advancing such inconsistent proposals.
As discussed in Part I of this two-part paper, other carriers agreed to pay the same pay rate for the A319 and the A321’s. They agreed to this because by paying one pay rate they may pay a little more for the A319 then what they could individually negotiate a pay rate for, but they pay a little less for the A321 pay rate. Other carriers have agreed to a trade off - common ground between union and management. AMR management is not seeking common ground, they are trying to cleverly lower pilot pay rates any way they can.
Management’s proposal will have APA pilots flying aircraft with 192 seats in a two-class configuration for MD80 pay rates while paying less than market rates for the A319?
Using management’s proposal to determine future groupings, with the A321 at 185/220 and the 757-200 at 200/228 there will never be another aircraft placed in Group IV, the 757 Group, with a FAA maximum single class seating configuration of 224 seats or less, or two class seating configuration of 192 seats or less, if the A321 is placed in Group III. To illustrate the effects of their proposal, if Boeing were to build an exact identical aircraft to the 757 in the future, under management’s proposal that aircraft would be placed in Group III, the MD80 grouping, not Group IV, the 757 grouping, even though it was the exact same aircraft but was designated differently. Clarifying this point further, this proposal will have APA pilots flying aircraft with 192 seats in a two class configuration for MD80 pay rates.
767 for 757 pay? 737 for MD80 pay rates? It turns out this proposal has NOTHING to do with reducing training expense and everything to do with lowering pilot pay...
When management grouped the individual aircraft within each grouping they took another opportunity to lower pilot pay rates by setting each Group rate at the lowest aircraft rate within the Group not the highest rate or even an average or blended rate. Their proposal lowers the 767-200 and 767-300 pay rates to the 757 pay rate, a $5 an hour pay reduction. It then lowers the 737-800 and 737-900 pay rates to the MD80 pay rate, another $5 an hour reduction.
On February 1st, Senior Vice President Human Resources, Jeff Brundage, wrote a letter to all employees that included the following statement, “Across all workgroups, we are proposing to maintain base pay rates to the greatest extent possible. In some cases, that will mean the savings will come from increased productivity. In others, it will rely on outsourcing..."
Management has made no secret about their desire to improve pilot productivity so that American Airlines’ pilots are as productive as any pilot group in the industry. It is also common knowledge to just about everyone--except apparently AMR management--that American Airlines pilot pay is already at or below its competitors. Recent contracts by our competitors have provided pilot pay rates above those paid to American’s pilots and two of the most recent contracts by carriers that were the last carriers to file bankruptcy, Delta and Hawaiian, have pay rates that exceed current American pilot pay rates by as much as 10% and 6% respectively.
With the exception of some changes to flight attendants' international pay rates, which we will address in a separate discussion, no other employee group besides the pilots is having their base pay rates reduced. When looking at American’s competitors’ pay rates for flight attendants, American's flight attendants have higher hourly pay rates than every other carrier including Delta, with the exception of Southwest and Continental. The fleet service baggage handlers have hourly pay rates in line with every other carrier except Southwest, whose rates are higher.
Management’s February 1st letter proposing to maintain base pay rates appears to apply to every employee group except pilots, even though American’s pilots significantly trail recent contracts by pilots at our legacy competitors at Alaska, Delta, Southwest and Hawaiian. Instead, management wants to reduce pilot pay rates while preserving other employee group’s pay rates even though they are currently near the top of their peers' pay scales. Meanwhile, management is demanding major productivity concessions from pilots while trying to pursue these further pay cuts.
Management has crafted a proposal that takes a concept that was designed by other carriers to reduce training costs and has cleverly developed a proposal to do little else than completely gut pilot pay. They then publicly state they intend to try to preserve pay rates in exchange for increased productivity. It appears that statement by management was not meant for pilots, just the other employee groups.
Once again, you have to ask, is this proposal fair and equitable? Even more so, is this proposal credible?
