Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Alaska (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/alaska/)

- - Pay, or scope? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/alaska/109498-pay-scope.html)

We just got another threatening email about the Orange lanyards. But they still want us to work together to fix the problems they created.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OCCP (Post 2478961)

We just got another threatening email about the Orange lanyards. But they still want us to work together to fix the problems they created.

Was that the VP message on the pilot web site? I tried to open it, but it didn't work.

Either TK doesn't know how to attach files, or they have pulled it for now.

I've been wearing mine. They are welcome to discipline me and remove me from flight status. We are so over-staffed that they can afford to do this rather easily.

Nevermind. I just got the E-Mail on Outlook.

I already texted one of my reps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForeverJunior (Post 2478977)

Nevermind. I just got the E-Mail on Outlook.

I already texted one of my reps.

Just get an Alaska lanyard and take a sharpie to it like I saw one awesome ALK CA do to our orange lanyard.. "WE'RE #5!" emblazoned all over it.

Effing awesome. I gave the guy a high five.:D

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete2800 (Post 2478798)

Your last line nailed it. All it would take is Congress "amending" the ATP requirement, and what's old is new again...

This is only a 6 to 10 month delay in the training pipeline Compared To the 1,000 hour requirement we used to see. It’s been in place for a number of years now so probably just a slight deterrent to most people thinking about a career. If they were to amend the age 65 rule as well then the pilot shortage would decrease.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete2800 (Post 2471416)

Both, because that's what's reasonable.

Delta has good pay and they have scope.
American has good pay and has scope.
United has good pay and has scope.
Southwest has good pay and has ULTIMATE scope. Zero outsourcing allowed.
Spirit has crap pay but is in negotiations for higher pay and does zero outsourcing.
Frontier has crap pay but is in negotiations and does zero outsourcing.
Allegiant has low pay but zero outsourcing.
Hawaiian has mediocre pay but no outsourcing.
JetBlue has below average pay, is in negotiations, and does no outsourcing.

When compared to those with similar pay to ours, our outsourcing is out of control.

When compared to those with outsourcing, our pay is pathetic.

Acceptable solutions are as follows:

1) Pay parity with DAL/UAL/AMR, and scope that limits seats to 76, weight to 86k, and airframes to a percentage comparable to DAL/UAL/AMR.
2) Pay parity with Southwest which would be a smaller increase, and the end of outsourcing completely. Every E175/Q400 flown by Alaska Airlines pilots.

Those options are reasonable as per industry standards. Anything less needs to be rectified. The excuse of "Oh, we're only 5th in revenue, we can't pay like the big companies" is complete garbage. We're 5th in revenue, but 6th in pilot group size. So if you're paying fewer pilots than your revenue position, you have more revenue per pilot than anyone else.

SCOPE...what’s the difference if you make 250 or 350 a year if you are on the street watching someone else fly your route. That’s why it’s always first in contract language.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papa Bear (Post 2479523)

SCOPE...what’s the difference if you make 250 or 350 a year if you are on the street watching someone else fly your route. That’s why it’s always first in contract language.

EXACTLY. I've said it before and I'll say it again: We work for an entity of Alaska AIR GROUP...our management team does what is best for the AIR GROUP. If that means "expanding the capabilities" of OO and QX with larger aircraft capable of flying transcon then that is exactly what they'll do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynncore (Post 2480301)

Once again, OO can't fly larger aircraft because of their scope agreements with the other airlines that have scope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PNWFlyer (Post 2480397)

Once again, OO can't fly larger aircraft because of their scope agreements with the other airlines that have scope.

True. But that doesn't mean some other regional couldn't do it. But probably not today...

Most big regionals are probably bound by the same scope as OO. Bottom feeders suck, in all respects. While AAG might find a mesa to do it, how are they going to staff it better than QX? And does AAG really want their customers (excuse me, guests), exposed to the likes of that?

And nobody will be starting up any clean-slate regionals any time soon... way too cost prohibitive in this environment, between startup costs and the fact that you would NOT benefit from the usual zero-longevity labor costs... in order to attract pilots to a startup regional today, you would have to pay really, really big bucks to attract qualified PICs from other regionals. Those qualified PICs are either staying where they're at for QOL, or applying to legacies. There's no pool of experienced furloughed dudes/dudettes to man a startup right now.

But this will not always be the case... scope should not be taken lightly long-term.

Yes, not saying we do not need scope, we do. Just remember we are lucky we enjoy some 3rd party scope protection.

The time to fight for a better contract is now. Not in the past because it is and the past and not 2 years from now because that is too late.

Support you Union and your fellow pilots. AA got a pay raise outside of negotiations and it wasn't because management loved and appreciated them. They fought for it. If you have any friends at AA ask them how they did it.