Originally Posted by
SilverandSore
I've already used the UPS analogy in this thread. We aren't UPS and the way this is being presented is as a benefit, which it very likely will not be, we don't even know if the company is inclined to go the blended route of the override route, but history is on my side, Skywest uses an override. If the blended rate is higher than the current 700 rate plus whatever increase the new contract offers, I am all for it. Otherwise, no thanks, I'm not interested in this concession.
As for my analogy, many corporate departments use co-captains where they swap seats during the trip for same pay, remember, it's blended, it's all even in the end. Isn't that really best for you to have all your options?
Yeah, we are not UPS but we are certainly not a corporate flight department. In fact, we are more like UPS than we will ever be like a corporate flight department. But if an airline would to hire co-captains instead of FOs then I wouldn't be against your idea either. So why is it you get to use your analogy and not I when mine is more relevant than yours?
The only reason why I'm even on this thread talking about this is because any modest raise to XJT's concessionary rates on their ERJs would be higher than current 76 seat rates at ASA. So I dont see a blended rate being lower than the current 700 pay. As for the company going for it, it would save them a lot of training costs.