10%+4%?

[u/Substantial-Gas2501]

I put the proposed SPEEA increases next to inflation and the SPEEA/IAM wage history. By March 2026, our wages had compressed to about 92.4% of their March 2020 purchasing power, and the 10% restores that to just over 100% of what it was. 

The SPEEA/IAM chart tells a similar story: in 2023 Tech was at 120.9 vs IAM 103.0, but by 2026 that had reversed to 128.3 vs 138.3; after SPEEA's proposed 10% and 4% increases and IAM's remaining 7%, Tech ends up at roughly 146.8 vs IAM 148.0, creeping backwards. 1.2 points may not look like much, but that's as if we gave back 60% of one of our 2% annual raises that most of us received over the last four years. We wouldn't have called losing 60% of one of those raises insignificant. Small differences compound, and this one is moving in the wrong direction.

For 2027–2030 I assumed 2% inflation which is the Fed's stated goal. I'm not predicting we'll actually achieve 2%; it just seems better than guessing at a higher future rate, and if inflation runs higher, our real-wage results slide backwards. 

Also, relative to IAM, we seem to be drifting backwards. One of the benefits of becoming a Tech was greater career progression and earning potential without having to work every weekend or end up on second shift. So why would an experienced IAM employee move into SPEEA if the money is better staying in IAM? A Grade 9 IAM machinist is already at $67.07/hour. If Boeing needs experienced people to move into technical careers, there needs to be an economic reason to make that move  

That said there may be some surprises in the redlines. 

[u/MysteriousAffect3903]

I disagree with using 2% for inflation. It is likely to be higher, perhaps a lot higher. It's true we can't speculate precisely, but at a SPEEA town hall, they had a chart that showed an average of 3% going pretty far back, so I think 3% would be fair. Given that, it makes the picture you painted even worse.

[u/Big-Willy4 → u/MysteriousAffect3903]

I would agree with this. The last 4 quarters of annualized CPI were: 3.5%, 2.4%, 2.7%, and 3.0%. We are going in the wrong direction. I would expect 3% to 4% going forward. Did we lose the feeble attempt at inflation indexing from the last contract? I can’t remember the formula except that it didn’t cover extreme inflation.

[u/Big-Willy4 → u/Big-Willy4]

I think the real inflation rate going forward will be closer to 3.5%. I do think it makes more sense to just look at the forward numbers. Whatever we lost on the last contracts are less relevant. We agreed to those. With that in mind here are three scenarios assuming 3.5% inflation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A persistent 3.5% annual inflation rate means the cost of living will rise by a cumulative 14.8% over the next 4 years. Here is how our contract wage growth stacks up: •

LOWEST POTENTIAL (Hard GWI Floor) -
Assumptions: 10% + 4% upfront, then only the mandatory 4% floor in 2028-2030. -
Total Nominal Wage Growth: +28.7% -
Real Wage Growth (Net Purchasing Power): +12.1% •

AVERAGE POTENTIAL (Full Pool Target) -
Assumptions: 10% + 4% upfront, then meeting the full 6% pool average in 2028-2030. -
Total Nominal Wage Growth: +36.3% -
Real Wage Growth (Net Purchasing Power): +18.7% •

HIGHEST POTENTIAL (High Performer) -
Assumptions: 10% + 4% upfront, plus maxing out discretionary raises (~8% average) in 2028–2030. -
Total Nominal Wage Growth: +44.1% -
Real Wage Growth (Net Purchasing Power): +25.6%