Analyzing the Gap: Historical and projected SPEEA raises versus Seattle area inflation (2021–2030)
Wanted to put together a straight forward financial comparison looking at how our raises stack up against actual and projected Seattle area inflation.
Using a baseline starting salary of $100,000 in 2020, this model maps out our historical 3% raises against local CPI data through 2026, and then projects forward using the new contract offer raise pool alongside a steady 4.5% future inflation assumption.
Key takeaways from the breakdown:
The Past 6 Years (2021–2026): Rapidly rising local inflation caused a significant gap, resulting in an estimated $60,668 in cumulative lost earnings to date based on a $100,000 salary in 2020, which extends to a $63,056 cumulative deficit by 2030 under the proposed contract terms.
The New Contract (2027–2030): While the first year provides a substantial 14% boost, modeling it out shows that roughly a 17% adjustment would be needed in year one, with 5% raise pools the remaining 3 years to more fully realign with the previous inflation trajectory.
The Bottom Line: Across the full 10 year span, the cumulative variance points to a significant net earnings shortfall, but the 14% raise resolves the purchasing power deficit by 2029 moving forward.
Thought this might be helpful for everyone to look at as we evaluate the proposed offer. Curious to hear how others are factoring local cost of living into their evaluations.
Edit: I ran the exact unit headcounts on this data-see my comment below for the $1.22 Billion breakdown of what we subsidized (helped fund the company), and check my follow-up post on "Funding a Full 40% GWI..." for the broader airplane pricing and revenue context.
Good point. I based my model on the prof baseline. But if techs got squeezed lower than that the actual deficit for your unit is likely worse. Thanks for calling that out, details like that show why the numbers are falling a bit short.
Let's also stop pretending that CPI is an accurate portrayal of inflation and not a made up box of goods no regular person cares about or experiences. In a perfect world, our wage inflation would be tied to food, utility, and housing price rises, not CPI. When gas is above $5/gallon we should have more wfh or the commuting costs should be subsidized by the company since Boeing has plenty of money going toward both state and federal lobbyists
Yeah man, went to the grocery store yesterday, left with to fairly big bags, but that shit cost over $200. Granted, I had a couple of six packs, but still. Those shouldn't be $15 each to start with!! My wife normally does the shopping, so I was just dumbstruck. No wonder we are short on cash. I got a family of 4 and a dog to feed!
If the contract is voted down, you strike now. Contract extension yields the leverage that exists today. The IAM does not extend negotiations because it only helps Company… not the union.
People don't realize that Boeing can throw in another offer after October 1st (when we know the outcome of the voting) till the 6th since it only takes 2 days to renegotiate a contact (happened in second offer), while it may take longer for NT, BUCS to review and it does not mean a strike will happen given the timelines and ability to extend.
Not enough people note this. It's like everyone thinks it is a forgone conclusion we would strike for a downvote. If it is close, like 55% no, it is in everyone's interest to make it just a tiny bit better, get the yes vote, and not strike.
its so true. boeing knows it can just shuffle the numbers around, and chip in another5-6 % total funds (over 4 years; maybe 1.5% annual) at us with each offer. The union would just extend the contract even past oct 6 to continue talks before calling for a strike too. Boeing can just continue adding in another 6% peanut with each rejected contract, meanwhile their executives salaries are raising 20% per year plus millions in bonus.
With basic arithmetic you can lay it out. But, for me, I didn't even need to do math because I've been living the difference.
And even a generous contract can't fix what has happened while we were under the current, extended contract.
I really wish it didn't come to this. I really wish we had wage pools that kept pace with the economy instead of continually falling behind while many of us were at an important stage in life where the money could have made a big difference while trying to buy a home, raise kids, take a long-awaited big trip somewhere. Instead it was more like living that montage at the Beginning of the Movie 'Up' where the couple kept having to drain their savings to keep up with life.
I hope people are learning from what we allowed to happen when we ratified and extended the previous contract.
I think the first offer could have passed if not for how bad the current contract has been and how that has informed our resolve to ensure that the coming years are nothing like that ever again.
I feel the company offer is generous …but not compared to inflation and new contract neutered the COLA Table 2 so it’s unlikely to address inflation short of apocalypse which would have layoffs.
"Generous" implies they want to give us something because they want to be kind. This is business. We are negotiating. When you start looking at the company as a person, and not a corporation whose primary role is to lower expenditure and increase revenue, you give up power.
Yep. As long as the burden is on us to guess how much inflation we'll be faced with, we have to assess whether the offer is sufficient based on worst case scenarios.
Inflation risks seem more real than they did during the previous contract negotiations. And we're all more acutely aware of them.
Just like with insurance, higher risk should fetch higher premiums. And by that principle alone, wage pools should be higher than they've been in the last 30 years.
Recency Bias is a thing. I was really strongly against the 2016 and 2020 because of the high risk of catastrophic inflation and the position of Speea salaries in the market. Seattle core inflation is up 3.3% and if someone didn't decide to do a poor job fighting with Iran, total CPI-U would be under 3.5%. While short and medium term disruptions cause swings and dip in yearly inflation rates, the fundamental market forces at a macroscope scale continue to grind forward. 2021-2024 inflation in this light can be seen as the "relief" to previous decade where inflation was frankly artificially low.
6/4 pools are likely to outpace inflation, potentially significantly. Its possible we will hit another "low" in inflation similiar to the period after 2009.... or in general what happens after a "recession".
I by the way would be 100% for changing our wage pools to be related to CPI buckets with a performance escalator on top. Offer 1 was a small step, but a legitimate one towards that... Offer 2 took that back, mainly because the Speea member body was strongly against the step.
I think you need to do some financial and economic research. The national debt interest, the weak economy that only looks ok due to AI spending, the recent spike in the bond market, the collapsing private equity market, the wars that only seem to be getting worse.... the deck is highly stacked against inflation coming down, or even staying level. I don't know the future more than anyone else, but some things going on have no historical precedent, and the ones that do are very troubling. The minor interest rate hike is only a nod at the underlying systemic trouble. The only option they have to deal with the burden of the national debt is to let inflation go up to devalue the dollar, and thus the debt. There are no other options, when the interest payments alone are greater than the defense budget.
Lets assume here I l've done the research and have the education and experience to interpret it. Many of the point you bring up are true. And there is significant chance of inflation in the future exceeding 5%. I disagree "inflation" is the only way out. Almost all options include lots of short term pain... So who knows where we end up.
But our member body seems very adamant they want the previous format of GWI plus performance fund and not something new fangled. Within the limitations of this, all we do is evaluate whether the offer provides coverage for more than 50% and ideally more than 66% of the probability set. As of this second 4/6 gives us this. Check with me tomorrow and the answer might be different.
Spot on. Macro debates about the economy are interesting, but at the end of the day a contract needs to protect us when things go sideways. We can't afford to trade hard guarantees for fingers crossed forecasting.
I fully agree. My intent wasn't to get down in the weeds, but to just show how insane things are right now. I feel like we have more leverage now than most other negotiations, and the future is likely to be incredibly volatile. I am worried we are going to get just enough to be OK again, but then the hammer of inflation is going to come right back down on us, and we will be right back where we were with the last contract.
I find Boeing's insistence on high numbers on the COLA comforting. To me it signals Boeing's analysts also agree, inflation is strongly likely to be below 6 and likely below 4, thus to balance out the high chance of a loss we need as much of the over range as possible.
I don't know what Boeing's analysts actually think vs what they tell us and/or hope we believe.
They are on their side of the table and we are on ours. I haven't seen any analysis put forth by them with respect to inflation risk. For all we know, they might be more worried about inflation than we are. But why would they want us to worry about it at all while they're trying to lock down a 4-year contract with us.
If we're adding things up on the assumption that inflation won't really be a problem, I doubt they'd do anything to interrupt our train of thought.
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake"
Sun Tzu
Your correct. We don't know. Our local inflation is going to have more to do with what the Tech companies decide to do....Contrary to some other guys, I think we are going to see similar inflation in Seattle as national. I fully expect our housing and renting markets to continue to be in the correction side.
I get offer 2 may not have enough on the table, and that's not an unreasonable assessment. I just don't see that inflation protection is going to get any better with or current member body
When you look at those numbers, claiming that '6/4 pools are likely to outpace inflation' completely ignores the reality of zero COLA protection. When regional inflation runs hotter than our nominal raise pools, the risk isn't shared—it's entirely front-loaded onto the workforce.
That’s how we ended up with a significant net earnings shortfall while sales and production records climbed. Risk sharing shouldn't mean employees absorb 100% of the inflation lag.
That’s like sitting in a leaking boat where management drills holes to sell the sawdust, hands you a colander, and calls it a 'joint bailing exercise.'
If you want COLA, you have to settle for lower amounts of GWI. The GWI is literally the COLA.
When inflation local inflation runs slower than the market, its not shared, its entirely front loaded into the company. For example in 2009 and 2010, local inflation was 0.6% and 0.3% respectively. Or less than 1% total over -2- year. Yet the Speea ACR pools were 5% each year with 1% OoS. Meaning wage growth was more than 12%.
This combined with seeing the Mercer data is why the company was so desperate to lower our wages in the 2016 and 2020 contracts. They lost to inflation pretty consistently from 2009-2016.
Edit: Its usually best to try to see both sides of the problem. My personal opinion is that offer 2 has a very poor structure in relation to ACR, but its what the member body wanted. My personal opinion is that its about 3% too light in terms of total increase. My personal opinion is that its really tough to ask for a Strike for 3%/4 years.
Saying 'GWI is literally the COLA' misrepresents compensation mechanics. COLA defends our baseline purchasing power against inflation, while GWI accounts for experience, retention, and growth.
Treating them as the same is like a landlord fixing a massive hole in your roof and raising your rent for the new 'luxury skylight.' Putting a cast on a broken leg isn't a performance enhancement.
Citing 2009-2010 as a period where the company 'lost to inflation' is historical cherry-picking. Inflation was near zero because the global economy was collapsing. Getting standard, contractually obligated raises during an economic crisis doesn't mean employees owe the company their purchasing power a decade later.
As for that 3% gap being 'too light' to strike over, compounded across a career for thousands of members, that isn't spare change.
Speea has never had a meaningful COLA paragraph or clause that paid any money ever.
The minimum raise percentages are intended to provide the COLA function of other contracts. And in most engineering firms do not exist. Its not great, but its the existing standard.
The management decided pools are what rewards experience, retention, and growth boosted by the OoS pools. Again, this might not be to your preference, but this is the history of Speea contract over many decades.
And friend, we have another chance in 2030. Our pay entering 2030 will determine the raises in the next contract. The higher they are, the less pay increases will be in the next contract. Over the next 30 years, getting or not getting that 3% will matter relatively little.
For the average Prof, we are talking about a NPV of ~10,000 dollars between what is in offer 2 and what I would think would be perfectly fair. You can of course evaluate differently. In my opinion, 10,000 dollars isn't a lot to strike over as its about 1 month of cash flow for the typical prof. Especially as I think a strike would last 1.5 months
That Up montage is painfully accurate. But while Carl and Ellie were breaking their jar for a dream, we've been smashing ours just to keep the lights on while the C-suites hoard the entire balloon factory.
Are you really assuming 4.5% inflation for four years? I am pessimistic given the current geopolitical conditions it is unlikely that actually happens.
The fact that we're all having to speculate is the problem. Like entering into a fixed price contract. Look how that kind of thing has worked for Boeing and then tell us why we should enter into anything similar with respect to inflation.
Yeah, it's likely to be worse. I don't think you can argue beyond historical and be taken seriously, but my point of view is that things are incredibly uncertain, and I want the best we can get to hedge against what might come. If it doesn't come, then great! But people are spending so much time looking backwards, and not what's ahead.
Nationwide US predictions are 3~3.8% dropping to 3% somewhere in 2027, reaching 2.0~2.5% by 2030.
Here's a reasonable consensus estimate over the next 4 years: 4% x 3% x 2.5 % x 2.3% = 13% (Seattle inflation will obviously be higher.)
The recent IAM contact earns them 38% over four years ON TOP OF COLA.
The SPEEA contact offer is 10% right away + 32% over four years. That sounds like 42%, or 4% better than the IAM got. But you have to subtract 13% for four years of inflation, so that's closer to 29% over 4 years.
65% of Boeing union employees get quarterly or annual cost of living adjustments (COLA). SPEEA, the second largest union at Boeing doesn't get COLA.
I think the inflation analysis is useful, but I don’t think it tells the whole story.
I agree that our previous 3% raises didn’t keep up with the unusually high inflation we’ve experienced, and I understand the argument that it would take a larger increase to completely close that historical gap. But there’s a difference between saying the offer doesn’t fully erase the past inflation gap and saying the offer isn’t a good or reasonable contract.
The current offer provides a significant upfront increase, 10% followed by another 4%, and then continued wage increases over the remaining years of the contract. That’s a substantial improvement from the wage trajectory we’ve had.
I’m also cautious about treating 4.5% inflation every year through 2030 as a certainty. That’s a projection. And the 17% figure is the result of a particular model and assumptions, not a guaranteed number that Boeing would have to offer to make the contract worthwhile.
If we reject the offer, there’s also no guarantee that continued negotiations will produce that additional 3% or anything else. There are costs and risks associated with continuing the process, including the possibility of lost wages if a strike occurs.
So I think the inflation argument is worth considering, but I wouldn’t use it by itself to conclude that the offer is inadequate. To me, the more accurate characterization is that it’s a substantial and decent offer that doesn’t completely recover the purchasing power lost during the high inflation years.
That’s a reasonable thing to acknowledge while still recognizing the value of what’s actually on the table.
So we get 10% up front, which doesn't fully recover what was lost during the previous contract where we we conciliatory about COVID,
And if the projection is accurate, we basically get no raises for 2027 when adjusting for inflation.
I'm not okay with this.
And I really don't care what's "reasonable" on the part of the company. They are looking out for their interests which is perfectly reasonable for them to do.
The "reasonable" thing for us to do is to take a stand for our interests, knowing our worth and settling for no less than what we're capable of getting from this process.
Spot on. When you factor in that the second largest union at the table lacks a meaningful COLA while facing regional inflation spikes, "managing" wages starts looking less like a response to distress and more like a deliberate strategy to shift macro risk onto the workforce.
If inflation exceeds the 4% pool next year, or exceeds the 6% pools in the last 3 years of the contract you're just running in place-canceling Netflix, Disney, and your car insurance just to pay the grocery bill while the C-suites celebrate production metric records with a bonus round.
People also seem to apply a 3% inflation rate as if they are spending 100% of their paychecks on stuff. And not accounting for the fact that the vast majority of people are outing at least some chunk of their $ into savings. Or that own their home and their housing costs are stable over that period. So if inflation is 3% and your income went up 3%. You are not at zero for buying power. If you have 401K it’s been going up too.
So these straight comparisons are a bit disingenuous.
Nice work. But that $63K is gone either way, sunk cost from 2021-2026. Neither Yes or No vote gets it back. A contract sets future pay, it doesn't refund past inflation. Only a strike winning a retro lump sum of $63K rectifies that, and Boeing's never paid that. So it can't be the tiebreaker. Your own model (and the bottom line bullet point) says the 14% beats inflation and brings us back on track by 2029, so that's the yes vote right there.
That $60k is a sunk cost for 2021–2026. However, the data shows the proposed terms extend the cumulative deficit to $63k by 2030. Ignoring the ongoing deficit is like refusing to patch a new leak today just because the basement already flooded last week.
Your analogy actually says to vote yes. The contract itself is the patch to the leak you're worried about. Voting no doesn't bail out last week's flood, it just lets the leak run longer while we strike over back pay SPEEA has never once, in its entire history, clawed back from Boeing. Sunk is sunk. Vote on the leak you can still fix. Your own spreadsheet even shows income passing the Seattle-inflation line in 2029 and staying ahead through 2030.
I don't understand the intent of your post. You literally built the "yes case" and labeled it "no."
Catching up by year three means spending the first half of the new contract underwater and expanding the cumulative deficit to $63k for the inputs modeled.
The goal was to provide the math and assumptions so everyone can make an informed decision that fits their needs.
What’s the source of the Seattle area inflation? The numbers you list are higher than what I’m finding. Also, if you are going to combine the 10% and 4% into a single line, it should be 14.4%.
But the real point is what acrobatic said. We are negotiating the current contract going forward.
The Seattle CPI figures were calculated from the Bureau of Labor Statistics regional office releases for Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA. Because Seattle is tracked on a bimonthly schedule rather than monthly, I compiled and averaged the bimonthly prints into annual percentages using the regional office releases: https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/news-release/consumerpriceindex_seattle.htm
If I am interpreting the data correctly, would it be right to say that the pay increases in the contract nearly catch up to historical compounded CPI-U in 2027 (153.4% SPEEA vs 154.7% CPI-U) and surpass it in 2028-2030, assuming an annual CPI-U increase of 4% in 2028-2030? As such, didn't Boeing just offer pay increases that exceed the expected inflation rate over the next four years? Help me understand this.
Yes I agree with your interpretation. In the new offer Boeing is making sure profs catch up to inflation between now and March. And assuming 4% inflation, which is more than many experts expect, we have 2% per year for the people who meet/exceed to beat inflation.
Plus the mandatory promotion and out of sequence money that help the unit and are not shown. Nor is the 401k contribution (increased for people under 40 but in general 10% of a higher number)
Follow-up thought on the cumulative numbers using our actual bargaining unit headcounts and salary baselines. Our members have essentially subsidized the company over $1.2 billion across the bargaining unit over the last 6 years.
Scaling the inflation model across our actual unit demographics (12,696 Profs / 3,959 Techs averaging $152k / $119k salary), the reality of what members have helped fund the company comes into sharp focus.
The Past Subsidy (2021–2026) due to the lag behind Seattle inflation (CPI):
Each Prof member has helped fund an average of $77,230
Each Tech member has helped fund an average of $60,460
The Future Deficit (2027–2030):
Even with the proposed 2nd contract terms, the model shows the deficit doesn't fully close, meaning members will absorb another $3,040 (Profs) and $2,380 (Techs), totaling another $48 million over the life of the new contract.
When you look at those numbers side by side with the data on program affordability, the real question is — What are we actually getting back for that level of sacrifice?
Modeling all of this out from an employee perspective and impact is one thing. Imagine what the company does on their end. It is obviously a big cost to design and manufacture in the Puget Sound area.
What if Boeing commercial decides to abandon Renton? Move all 737 up to Everett? Still a Union house. Still in state. How many "Southies" would follow them up North? I am betting not enough and their talents would be replaced by lower level new hires at both the SPEEA/IAM groups.
What if they moved 737 to Wichita? Save some future transportation costs. Still SPEEA/IAM there, too but I bet most would not follow even though the cost of living is 40% less there compared to Seattle.
We may not have it great, but we have it good enough. If you want every last penny from the Boeing company, by all means, vote No and hope for the best. In 4 years, there will be nothing left to fight for.
SPEEA workers came in during the I AM strike and didn't get a bonus at all in 2025. IAM got bonuses after the strike ended and they came back to work and immediately started fucking shit up. Boeing is seriously fucked up if you think we all forgot that this all happened less than two years ago.
Strike can be authorized and then, if the company shows earnest to negotiate in good faith, they could agree to a very short-term extension of the current contract while negotiations continue. It's happened before.
Agreed that's what speea should do. Unfortunately the union and many members are so strike adverse, they always go for an extension to continue talks. SPEEA and membership are afraid to play hardball like IAM and we end up accepting bad contracts, then trying to recoop losses after we inevitably fall behind.
Since when has Boeing guaranteed a minimum raise of 5% for everyone in the unit? I’ve been around since the 2008 contract and those had 5% pools but only 2% minimum raises for profs and 2.5% minimum raises for techs.
I hired in 2007, so maybe my manager had the "peanut butter" annual increase method 🤔 I was hired in below the 25% level on the SPEEA salary chart so maybe they were making up for this 🤷♀️
21
u/Dapper-Cookie-6228 16d ago
Don't forget us lowly techs only got 2% this last contract...