New TA... again
10-17-2019 | 12:29 PM
#211
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2019
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
If we do ever fly together and you do something stupid I will never hesitate to speak up. That’s called professionalism and knowing how to do the job you were hired to do. Usually people who say “you will be a joy to fly with” are the ones that shouldn’t be allowed to pass the galley.
10-17-2019 | 02:41 PM
#212
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Wouldn't an arbitrator give us about industry average if we didn't come to an agreement with the company? Again, we don't fly anything bigger and may not in any of our time here. Why are you so hung up on a rate for an aircraft that we don't have or even have a reason to believe we may get in the future? By your logic, we should also go insist on getting flight engineer rates just in case it's mandated that we have to start flying with one.
If you can't see the difference between management using their bargaining capital to remove a pay scale for an aircraft class we actually have a relatively high chance of flying one day vs arbitrarily fighting for a position that has been completely eliminated in most of the world with 0 chance of ever happening here, it's not even worth discussing this with you anymore.
10-17-2019 | 03:28 PM
#213
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Need clarification
Section 3 defines the pay scale as applicable to “all aircraft that seat 44-50 passengers with a common type rating.”
Why is everyone so concerned that if/when a larger airframe comes on property it will be at a discount? Even if the CRJ900 comes online, it would require renegotiation since the seating capacity is spelled out.
It seams to me that eliminating an outdated, larger aircraft, pay scale is actually an advantage. If the company wants to operate a new airframe (that’s not common to the CL-65 with 44-50 seats) they would be forced to not only get everyone trained, they will now also have to open up negotiations on the whole contract just to solve the compensation section problem that exists in the new TA.
Why is everyone so concerned that if/when a larger airframe comes on property it will be at a discount? Even if the CRJ900 comes online, it would require renegotiation since the seating capacity is spelled out.
It seams to me that eliminating an outdated, larger aircraft, pay scale is actually an advantage. If the company wants to operate a new airframe (that’s not common to the CL-65 with 44-50 seats) they would be forced to not only get everyone trained, they will now also have to open up negotiations on the whole contract just to solve the compensation section problem that exists in the new TA.
10-17-2019 | 03:38 PM
#214
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Section 3 defines the pay scale as applicable to “all aircraft that seat 44-50 passengers with a common type rating.”
Why is everyone so concerned that if/when a larger airframe comes on property it will be at a discount? Even if the CRJ900 comes online, it would require renegotiation since the seating capacity is spelled out.
It seams to me that eliminating an outdated, larger aircraft, pay scale is actually an advantage. If the company wants to operate a new airframe (that’s not common to the CL-65 with 44-50 seats) they would be forced to not only get everyone trained, they will now also have to open up negotiations on the whole contract just to solve the compensation section problem that exists in the new TA.
Why is everyone so concerned that if/when a larger airframe comes on property it will be at a discount? Even if the CRJ900 comes online, it would require renegotiation since the seating capacity is spelled out.
It seams to me that eliminating an outdated, larger aircraft, pay scale is actually an advantage. If the company wants to operate a new airframe (that’s not common to the CL-65 with 44-50 seats) they would be forced to not only get everyone trained, they will now also have to open up negotiations on the whole contract just to solve the compensation section problem that exists in the new TA.
10-17-2019 | 04:07 PM
#215
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Section 3 also says that a pay scale, not the entire contract, will be negotiated if they add an aircraft outside of the ones we have pay scales for, and it also says that if we fail to reach an agreement it will be taken to binding arbitration. (And I’m sure the arbitrator will be completely fair and equitable to us....)
10-17-2019 | 04:21 PM
#216
Used to Get Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
From: CRJ-200
10-17-2019 | 05:01 PM
#218
Used to Get Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
From: CRJ-200
Was that 3% bonus already in the contract or was that in the previous TA that failed? I just looked in the retirement section (29 in the 2013 version and 28 in the proposed TA) and I don't see any changes.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
10-17-2019 | 05:08 PM
#219
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
