Originally Posted by
ebl14
Why do you think its worthless? I don't understand this statement. There are a few downfalls in this agreement, I think 401k is horrible unless you are super senior. But this is better than pinnacle could have done alone, and far and away better than colgan could ever dream of by themselves.
The worthless comment was due to the post saying that we won't get mesabas contract if we didn't sign this because the company wouldn't want it. Well if the company can go around the contract that easily then they are worthless.
Originally Posted by
Kellwolf
Over the life of the contract, the Q doesn't pay less than the -200.....it pays the same. Like was mentioned, by year 3, the Q is at Horizon's current rates. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what Colgan pilots WANTED?!?!? If you told Colgan pilots they'd be getting Horizon rates on the Q in their new contract this time last year, you'd be met with looks of disbelief. Now, it's not enough. Odds are VERY good that Horizon's pay rates are either gonna stagnate or reverse because of their agreement to baseball style arbitration.
The whole "the Q400 is where the growth is, so it should pay better" makes no sense. If Delta announced they were gonna be growing the 737s in their fleet, should it pay more than the 777 or the 757? If we took delivery of another 30 Qs, it would still be fewer than the number of -900s and way fewer than the number of -200s.
In the end, everyone has to make the choice for themselves. If some feel that the split pay rate on the Saab or the Q400 pay rates outweigh the other aspects of the contract, then it's your right to vote "no" on the deal. I'm not a huge fan of the health care premiums and co-pays going up as much as they do for 9E, but I don't think it's enough to kill the whole deal for me. At the end of the day, I'm still taking home more $$$ with better protections on my QoL even with the increased health care costs.
Bolded part is completely false. The Q rates are no where near equal to the 50 seat jet until DOS +5
As for paying where to growth is: I don't expect the airframe that has to growth to get payed unreasonably(ie; i dont expect a 737 to pay more than a 777) But that's what everyone on here is saying should happen. Its like saying a 737(50 seat plane) should be payed more then a 767(74 seat plane) What is the justification? Historical precidence aside, you have none.