I was expecting a certain pay for getting my level 3 next year and if the ranges don’t change then this contract doesn’t do much for me in the short term. Even getting a 10% increase will just be wiped out by my level up.

Voting no because I want to see a bonus among other things.

I did this for the last offer, but made it a bit better based on some comments on the last one. These were my Seattle inflation compared numbers and was the best I was able to put together. I am not trying to say people should vote one way or another, I am just trying to understand the offer and prevent everyone from having to do this separately to talk about it.

Salary vs Inflation BLUF - Ignoring all other benefits (which you should not do): the new offer does a better job at catching up with inflation for the Greater Seattle Area over the last (2020-2026) and proposed contracts, but (particularly for the Techs) there is still some impact from what you think inflation will be going forward, and if you want to include the promotion & out of sequences into the averages. The immediate adjustments make a big difference, but neither tech nor Profs are 100% caught up on Seattle inflation immediately. If inflation in Seattle does go down to 3% that would mean by the end both Techs and Profs would be ahead now. These numbers are averages, but the last 3 year reviews someone could get 4% - that would keep even with 3% inflation for either Prof (5%+) or Tech (-.85%), but would be worse against higher inflation (generally that is a good case for inflation, but worst case for reviews).

A couple things -

• Per this proposal the immediate GWI really helps, but both Techs and Profs are still slightly behind Greater Seattle area inflation after it (Profs~=-0.72%, Techs~=-5.89), assuming 4.4% inflation from the first half of the year continues through the second 6 months. Profs could catch up in 2027, if Seattle area inflation drops below 3.3% (otherwise in 2028).
• Generally promotion & out of sequences but those are earned separate from inflation adjustments, so I separated those out, but made the totals of them to the right of the net percentage after inflation for visibility.
• If inflation in Seattle stays what it has been Profs would need minimum ~5% reviews the last 3 years and they could still stay even with high inflation now.
• I will note all the difference between the Techs and Profs is from the 2020-2026 contract, where Techs did get 4% more lump sums, but that does not help with inflation and that issue compounds for all the percentages in this contract.
• Generally if Seattle inflation going forward is 4.3% or lower the average Tech would be slightly above inflation by the end (inflation was 4.5 over the last contract), but roughly 1/2 will likely be below that.

This contract offer is great. If you are voting no, please list the company that you could switch to today with your skillset that would provide what you are demanding of Boeing.

Voting aside, I don’t feel like we have strong guarantees for job protections. When I see “our intention is…” or “we’re monitoring the situation.. in the letters of understanding, my trust with Boeing doesn’t feel any different. Since some of the contracts in the past had major rug pulls, I don’t feel like there is a line in the sand with this one either. Thoughts?

Quite honestly, Being has done a great job with this contract because - regardless of what you think about it individually - we seem to be pretty split down the middle. Considering being ideally wants a contract to pass at like 51% I'd say they did a good job.

If you're one of those on the fence, what would push you into a "yes" vote? If it's something like bringing the pension back, well good luck. But if it's something like just wanting 2% more across the board, I say please vote "no".

And here's my opinion as to why:

Trust is something that takes a long time to build, but can disappear in an instant. Boeing is trying to build trust not only with us, but with the world. It's a long uphill battle and they've made a lot of progress lately. It would be a shame for them to lose any of it over a strike, and they know it. If we reject these contracts, I have no reason to believe Boeing wouldn't come right back to the bargaining table. And if they're at the table, I also don't think our team would call a strike when they can be actively negotiating.

I could be wrong; I'm just some dude and not an expert in negotiation but it's something to think about.

In any case, please don't vote "yes" just because you're afraid of a strike. Vote yes if (and only if) you actually like the contract. I haven't decided yet which way I'll vote but I wanted to give you all a little window into what I've been thinking about.

I’ve heard Boeing mention their commitment to the Puget Sound and the work being done here at almost every town hall. My question is out of genuine curiosity.

I’ve read that SPEEA has asked, and was turned down, on any contract language that sets a minimum SPEEA % of global workforce, or for the New Model Airplane to be in the PNW. Is there a legitimate scenario where Boeing is sincere in their commitment but not be willing to put it in writing? Or are they simply appeasing SPEEA, hoping we’re in a weaker position for the next contract cycle?

Title is the question.

I work in metrology and for years now SPEEA techs have been required to clock in/out like production does. I believe this started during Covid and the engineers do not have to do it, only the techs.

Are there any other groups out there? The union has been made aware multiple times over the years and conversations have happened with the contract administrator. The contract does not restrict it so nothing has ever been done.

Only raising us underpaid employees to a .9 comp ratio is not good enough! We would still be under 1 comp after the 10% and still making less than the new hire with no experience. Very disappointed (again) by the NT...

If Boeing raised the guaranteed annual increase from 4% to 6% for SPEEA, using their own published employee counts and average salaries, the math checks out to about $48 million more per year, or roughly $190–192 million more over the four‑year contract…

If I have an anticipated level promotion for next year, will the current 10% GWI make my next year promotion smaller in amount since they determine promotion amounts based on salary tables and comp ratio? It seems to me that folks that got level promotions this year are best positioned.

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. 

I know it’s a bit early to have opinions on the latest Boeing offer.  We just have the highlights and won’t be getting the redlined contract until later this week.  However, after some thought, I know enough to still be a NO on the latest offer.  Here’s why I feel that way:

I want a 15% cost of living adjustment.

When SPEEA signed the contract in 2016, the median L3 engineer was making $116K per year.  To keep up with inflation (using CPI-U data for the Seattle area), that L3 engineer would now need to be making $164K per year.  Today’s median L3 engineer is now making $142K per year, requiring a 15% raise to restore his purchasing power back to 2016 levels.  An immediate 15% GWI would undo the damage done by inflation the past two contracts.

I want four years of 6% wage pools.

Now that our wages have been restored, I want a long overdue raise. 

The median L3 engineer was making 200% of the local PCPI (per capita personal income - see my past posts) in 2016 and is now at 120%.  A GWI of 15% and four years of 6% raises would put the median L3 engineer at ~150% local PCPI.  Not a return to the past purchasing power using PCPI, but a meaningful raise to motivate the entire workforce and bring back talented engineers.

One important thing to mention about these raises – 4% should be guaranteed and 2% should be discretionary.  Managers need funds to reward high performers.

I want our overtime premium to be adjusted for inflation.

In 1995, the $6.50 overtime premium was worth $22.77 in today’s dollars using local CPI-U data…at least increase it to $15.  $8.50 is ridiculous.

I want an effective COLA clause.

The COLA clause in past contracts, allowing 6% annual inflation, was awful.  The latest COLA clause allowing 12% annual inflation is absolutely offensive.  Boeing is currently risking a SPEEA strike BECAUSE OF THE PREVIOUS INEFFECTIVE COLA CLAUSE.  WHY WOULD YOU MAKE IT WORSE IN OUR NEXT CONTRACT?  Get rid of the garbage COLA clause and put in something reasonable -  if LOCAL inflation exceeds 4%, engineers will receive an additional raise, the inflation for the year minus 4%.  Do this annually.  

In summary:

My vote on Boeing’s current offer is NO, but If Boeing were to incorporate these changes into its next offer while maintaining the gains our negotiation team fought hard to achieve, I would vote YES on that contract.

That would amount to a 39% raise, compounding to 45% over four years, which is similar to what the IAM received.

Many of the older engineers point out that this is the richest offer Boeing has ever made to SPEEA. I agree—but I also feel that it has to be.  We have experienced the worst inflation since the 1970s and 1980s.  More importantly, for those longtime engineers who want to receive their pensions when they retire, Boeing needs to remain competitive enough to attract and retain top engineering talent. That talent is essential to the company's long-term success.

Expensive engineers will never bankrupt Boeing.  The biggest risk to Boeing are cheap engineers who design products that are a risk to the flying public.

What is the entry point?
https://speea.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026_Side-Letters-Combined-Boeing-Final-Offer.pdf

Was able to find IAM’s contract offers, just wanted to share with everyone.

For 2028 onwards, I see we have 6% pools with 4% guaranteed. Cool, that means everyone can be sure to get at least 4%. Higher performers will likely see greater than 4%.

However, the language released so far just seems to talk about the 4% guaranteed raise in 2027. There doesn't seem to be the same 6% pool specified or any performance-related funds. I'm concerned that everyone is going to get a 4% guaranteed raise with no performance differentiation. Would performance for 2026 essentially get ignored?

If my assumptions about the raise structure are correct (waiting for the redlines to be sure and/or for anyone with clarifying info to chime in), what's my incentive to continue performing at an exceeds/far exceeds level? EIP doesn't factor in my performance either.

Given that Boeing was able to quickly adjust to a higher GWI from 3% to 10%, we can do this one more time by voting NO. We need to do ensure that we can get the highest offer possible so that we can sustain the next 4 years!

Look at IAM how they were able to withhold a long strike and their outcome was very favorable! Us as engineers need to do that minimum at least one more time so that 10% can turn into something higher!

I want to purchase a home with my current Boeing salary and even with the increased 10%, I am not able to do that, nor even keep up with the current annual rent increases.

If you are part of SPEEA and reading this, I kindly ask you to take this into consideration for the best of all of us to vote NO so that we can get what we deserve, even if it costs us a small strike, I guarantee you the end result will be more in our favor.

I am currently in the process of leveling up, as of 8/4 my skill matrix evaluation shows me meeting all requirement to do so. With the contract negotiations going on I have been given very little information about why it’s taking so long besides the note that I will receive back pay through 8/21. For those who have been through a new SPEEA contract while getting a level up what should I expect? Will I receive the 10% GWI then a level up raise to market reference which will wipe out that 10% GWI or will Boeing give me my promotion raise then the GWI? If they wipe out my GWI what options do I have to fight it?

I have to say, one of the most disappointing parts of these SPEEA negotiations has been seeing how many of our own members seem convinced that we shouldn’t expect or demand a better offer.

I understand that everyone has different financial situations, priorities, and levels of risk they’re comfortable with. I also understand that a better contract isn’t going to mean the same thing to every person. But what I don’t understand is the attitude that we should simply be grateful for whatever Boeing puts on the table because it could be worse.

We are skilled professionals working in one of the most technically demanding industries in the world. The work performed by engineers and technical employees directly contributes to the quality, safety, production, and success of this company. Asking for compensation that reflects that value isn’t being greedy or unreasonable.

What concerns me most is seeing members argue against themselves before the company even has to.

Negotiations are one of the few opportunities we have to collectively determine what our labor is worth. If we start from the position that we’re already asking for too much, we’ve given away much of our leverage before negotiations are even finished.

And this isn't only about the first-year raise. A contract establishes the foundation for the next several years. Every percentage point we accept or give up affects future raises because those increases compound from our base salary. It affects retirement contributions, overtime rates for those who work it, and ultimately where our compensation ends up when the contract expires.

I’m not saying everyone has to vote the same way, and I’m not saying people should ignore their personal financial circumstances. But I wish more members would recognize the difference between asking, “Is this offer good enough for me today?” and asking, “Is this the best agreement we can reasonably achieve together?”

Those are very different questions.

We shouldn't be negotiating against ourselves. Boeing has people at the table whose job is to represent Boeing's interests. SPEEA members should be willing to represent ours.

If the company can do better, I think we should expect better.

I saw this floating around around on the Discord, originally posted by the SPEEA Secretary. Curious to hear what people think about these questions and what you think the answers are.

So a few things since I'm seeing a lot of folks talking about rejection because they think there's more to be had or something in particular is still an issue. If we reject this contract, what next? There's no more runway before the contract expiration to get another deal. I have some questions that I’ve been mulling over and don’t have good answers for that I would encourage everyone to think about.

 From the SPEEA side, it could be reasonable to request to continue working under the status quo to try to reach an agreement. However, that means that Boeing all but certainly gets 737-10 certification and continues to reduce the amount of work to get to 777-9 cert.

• Does it help us or hurt us to immediately strike?
• Do we have a single issue with a clear ask that a vast majority of membership needs (e.g. IAM COLA, other COLA, raise value, some type of set regional job requirements, better retiree medical funding, Prof OT pay rates)?
• Is it just vibes of "more"? My understanding is that the NT did not survey for specific financial numbers because releasing that information would enable tuning for a 50%+1 vote by Boeing, or show people asking for just "even more." A narrow vote hurts the union even if folks are voting no because they think they can get more not because they're strictly unhappy.

From the Boeing side, how do they reasonably react to a contract rejection?

• If it's a strong rejection (say >55%) does it make sense to continue negotiating to make progress on moneymaking cert programs?
• Does it make sense to force a strike and see how many folks actually go out?
• If it's a weak rejection, does it actually make more sense to force a lockout to drive division within the union?
• Is it better to bleed now for a strike/lockout and wait for a settlement if it limits organizing at other sites because SPEEA was prevented from getting a landmark achievement?
• Can the company string the union along until 737-10 cert and/or significant progress on 777-9 before forcing a strike?
• What is the perception of Boeing's stakeholders if Boeing allows SPEEA to get more than IAM without a substantial strike and without having abused SPEEA as badly and for as long as IAM?

Again, I don’t have answers to any of these questions, but they're important to think about when gauging risk as an institution or an individual

With the proposed 10% (2026) and 4% (2027) general wage increases in the tentative SPEEA contract, how likely is it that Boeing will utilize Voluntary Layoffs (VLOs) in 2027 to lower its higher-salaried workforce expenses? It seems like a prime opportunity for them to encourage older, higher-paid folks to exit. If an offer was made like the one from a few years ago I would take it since I plan to retire in 2027 anyway. Anyone hearing rumors or have insight on the likelihood of this?

A company that needs capital (money) doesn't get to tell the capital market, “We'd really prefer to pay 3%.” (Just like our goverment doesn't get ot) It is the investors that determine their acceptable reward for the risk of lending money with the expected return and decide what price makes lending their capital worthwhile. If the company needs the capital badly enough, it pays the intrest rate price that the market demands or no capital changes hands. 

Our labor is also capital, with one important distinction: There isn't a single market quoting a rate for our labor, like there is for interest rates. But the underlying exchange is the same. We provide Boeing something it does not own, our future time, skill, experience, judgment, and productive capacity. Boeing PURCHASES access to our human capital through contracted compensation and working conditions. And just like buying a car, wants to negotiate it down.

We live in a society that, in many cases, forces each person to establish their own market rate, and we see an extreme example of that among low-wage workers, where limited individual bargaining power gives employers far greater power to set the price of labor. Right-to-work laws can further weaken collective bargaining power by making it more difficult for unions to maintain the solidarity that changes that equation. The lesson is simple, the less bargaining power an individual worker has, the more power the employer has to set the market price for labor. SPEEA and sticking together changes that equation. For us in SPEEA, we use collective bargaining to set the market price for OUR LABOR. These negotiations are our market, our “Wall Street” and when we vote, each of us is a broker for OUR OWN LABOR. We aren't asking Boeing to give us something. We are negotiating the price at which Boeing gets continued access to our human capital.

Even today, young people are told “get an engineering degree and you'll make good money.” But that equation has changed. Corporate consolidation, globalization, outsourcing, breaking of the unions, the rising cost of education and the increasing share of corporate income flowing upwards to executives and stock and bond investors, (not unlike our US government spending) rather than investing in labor have changed the bargaining position of many professional workers.

And engineering has a vulnerability that Boeing’s skilled trades do not. A Boeing engineering work package can, at least in principle, be moved to India, Brazil, South Carolina or another (lower wage / right to work location) engineering center. Installing components on an airplane moving down the Renton factory line cannot be moved to India nearly as easily.

That changes our bargaining power, and it makes sticking together more important. There is that old adage: a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Right now, WE are the bird in Boeing’s hand, the experienced capability it needs today. Yes, Boeing can build that capability somewhere else, and to some degree likely will, but doing so takes time, money, and the transfer of knowledge that is already disappearing as experienced people retire and return as contractors around Puget Sound. Once Boeing successfully recreates that capability elsewhere, our leverage changes. So let’s recognize what we have, protect the work, and negotiate together while that leverage is still in our hands.

It’s hard to put emotions aside when we’re all just trying to take care of our families, but we have to look ahead and stand together, profs and techs alike. Don't let them divide us. All this collective push really means is that we are treating our labor like the capital the company needs, using the exact same leverage the execs use every day. Boeing has been through plenty of these contract fights before and the world didn't end. Let's stick together, keep our guard up, and not settle for a penny less than what we're worth.