Originally Posted by
ClipperJet
This entire discussion could be solved in one simple way: Pay pilots by their length of service/seniority instead of the size of the plane. There would then be fewer difficult, complicated, loophole-filled “scope” clauses to fret about.
If the company wants to buy RJs? OK. If they want to buy A-380s? OK. Company pilots will fly them at the same pay scale. Slow growth/slower upgrades? Not OK, but much less painful as step pay increases would come at the x year point instead of an aircraft upgrade. Same for the age 65 debate. Everyone could bid/fly the lifestyle they prefer and can hold—all with the same pay. The company has less cost in training because folks don’t have to change planes to make more money.
It’s a win/win/win situation
7576FO writes,
I thought the entire discussion was 36 pages/charts/graphs/slides that AA management and AA negotiators used to try to prove their case to the mediator that AA (APA) pilots while flying less than SWA and Delta, and while paid less than SWA and Delta are the reason for lack of profitability
at AA and are blocking growth and profitability. (Yeah, Right!)
Additionally it was AA that decided to merge a bunch of commuter airlines, Wings West, Simmons, several others into American Eagle.
Just like other major airlines.
Please read my previous post about next generation regional aircraft that may be flown by mainline pilots, thus replacing existing 35-70 seat RJs.
I don't have a crystal ball and don't know what will happen at/with Eagle.
Yes, you have a point about seat swapping training cycles and the potential to be a win/win. But right now at least at my airline there are bigger problems that need to be dealt with.
I understand the 7,300 floor case is finished. Decision mid-January.