THE Air Wisconsin thread...
#171
They didn't seem to think that would matter when they voted in concessions.
The reason AA is keeping most of the flying at the WOs has to be either because:
1. They are cheaper
2. They want to keep the profits, even if the WOs are more expensive.
If it's 1, then all three are on track to become more expensive, and at this rate it will be cheaper to give us more flying, as much as saying that makes me want to vomit.
If it's 2, then you/they voted in concessions for no reason, because according to that AA would have expanded the WOs just to keep the profits, even if they were the more expensive option.
The reason AA is keeping most of the flying at the WOs has to be either because:
1. They are cheaper
2. They want to keep the profits, even if the WOs are more expensive.
If it's 1, then all three are on track to become more expensive, and at this rate it will be cheaper to give us more flying, as much as saying that makes me want to vomit.
If it's 2, then you/they voted in concessions for no reason, because according to that AA would have expanded the WOs just to keep the profits, even if they were the more expensive option.
Second, I am puzzled also in the fact that American needs the lift and I'm sure they need the pilots. Maybe they are beating down AWAC Pilots to rid it from the senior pilots (and to force a take it or leave it offer) and then in a swift move Parker comes in and allows PSA/PDT to acquire all the remaining AWAC assets that are left. (Basically the Pilots (PSA) & ground equipment and personal (PDT).
I think something needs to be done soon because AWAC can't keep losing pilots and American can't afford to start seeing flights cancelled by them for crews. Gonna get very interesting really soon.
#172
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
#173
Actually they voting in Concession before that to keep flying for United. It was before my time but I've heard the stories. AWAC was lucky to have survived the grips of United back then. I think United actually bought them then and tore them down badly.
#174
#175
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Which was in 2003....What year are you talking about then, that AWAC voted in concessions before 2003 to keep the United flying? From what I understand, AWAC actually negotiated significant gains in 2001 right before 9/11.
#176
Like I said it was before our time. I'm thinking it was the early 90's. Ask some of your senior Captains. I think United basically bought them for the routes and then almost squeezed them out of existence. It's pretty interesting learning the history of many of our regional carriers.
#178
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
First of all this is a rediculous statement. The flying has never gone to whoever has the most pilots, or even whoever has the best chance at staffing it. History has proven that growth precipitates recruitment. There was a point not long ago that AWAC had more than enough pilots to take on any added flying that could be thrown its way, especially when republic was hurting badly. Further, before Piedmont voted in concessionary jet rates, they were in the exact same situation as AWAC; couldn't recruit because of an uncertain future and aging fleet, and had nowhere near the amount of pilots they needed for all the (potential) added flying. By your own logic, the flying would have gone to AWAC at this point and not Piedmont because they could staff it. But that's not what happened. Singing that new deal with Parker changed Piedmonts outlook and made it an attractive place to be, and people started to apply. You don't need the full amount of pilots that added flying would require as a prerequisite to get it. So when we are whipsawed against Piedmont and PSA again, and do take more of their flying because we now make less, I will vomit.
#180
doin time
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 439
Likes: 0
From: RJ Left
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post



