Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Alaska (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/alaska/)
-   -   When Flossing isnít Enough (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/alaska/122234-when-flossing-isn-t-enough.html)

Niobe 06-10-2019 01:43 PM

Industry all going to 16% in future years
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ShyGuy (Post 2833200)
Put another way, I'm a reserve guys and will be for a loong^2 time. How do you think it'd feel if some guy came on here and said I'm not on reserve, I'll never be on reserve, so I don't want one penny going on reserve improvements and put that towards increasing my 12th yr payrate even more. So far I haven't seen anyone write that publicly. Yet here and on Alyeska, there are VX guys calling for removing pensions going forward. Since you're on the topic of pensions is it fair to assume an industry standard contract looks at it section by section? Our DC retirement is 15.5%. Today AA/DL/UA get 16%. HAL, JBLU, and SWA are 15%. 15.5% seems to be industry average today.

JBLU SWA (not sure about HAL) already have contract language increasing DC to 16% in the near future

Fit4Doody 06-13-2019 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnockKnock (Post 2833341)
If youíre not going to stand up for their pension, why should they stand up for our scope? Why should they worry themselves with section 25? They wonít be the ones to feel the effects of the ever growing outsourcing. Most of them will be long retired when the first 190ís ďoperated by SkywestĒ, start parking at our gates. So why should they give it a second thought? Most of them are already near the top of the list and get much better schedules than most of us so why would they ask to sacrifice negotiating capital on anything other than pension strength and pay increases. I live in base, commuter friendly lines are not necessarily my immediate concern. Should I not bother standing up for better schedules and commutability? If this is going to devolve into divided groups throwing each other under the bus, we may as well just sign a contract extension right now. Sadly, this thread is proof that managements propaganda is working all too well. Weíve already reached the ďevery man for himselfĒ stage and negotiations just opened this week.... I was told that VX brought over 800 guys ready to fight for better?!?!

For what itís worth the only regional out there that would be allowed to operate 190s is Horizon. Skywest canít fly anything over 76 seats /85K GTOW due to scope restrictions for competing carriers (ie canít fly 190s for AS if theyíre doing business for DAL/UA/AA et al.

Baradium 06-13-2019 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fit4Doody (Post 2836054)
For what itís worth the only regional out there that would be allowed to operate 190s is Horizon. Skywest canít fly anything over 76 seats /85K GTOW due to scope restrictions for competing carriers (ie canít fly 190s for AS if theyíre doing business for DAL/UA/AA et al.

Just for clarification purposes, they can operate 190s, but they cannot be on any routes where they compete with us directly (DL). With the uptick in SEA departures for DL, that does have the same effect though.

KnockKnock 06-13-2019 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fit4Doody (Post 2836054)
For what itís worth the only regional out there that would be allowed to operate 190s is Horizon. Skywest canít fly anything over 76 seats /85K GTOW due to scope restrictions for competing carriers (ie canít fly 190s for AS if theyíre doing business for DAL/UA/AA et al.

I’ve heard that. Replace Skywest with any regional operator or code share partner out there. For one thing, I don’t want to rely on other companies scope language to prevent AS from outsourcing my job. We need our own protections. My point is that if we as a group start breaking off and only standing up for what immediately affects us as individuals we are a lost cause and this contract will look like the last 40. It’s only been 2 weeks since openers started and pilots are already showing individualism. So much for “Unity 2020”, that lasted long... None of us have absolutely identical needs from a contract. Commuters vs. non-commuters, those about to retire vs. new hires, those with chronic illness vs. extremely healthy etc. etc. We might not like some of the “sacrifices” we have to make in order to gain a well rounded contract that the whole group can benefit from but if we don’t make them, we’re doomed to another subpar cba that nobody likes.

s3cLyfe 06-30-2019 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnockKnock (Post 2836169)
Iíve heard that. Replace Skywest with any regional operator or code share partner out there. For one thing, I donít want to rely on other companies scope language to prevent AS from outsourcing my job. We need our own protections. My point is that if we as a group start breaking off and only standing up for what immediately affects us as individuals we are a lost cause and this contract will look like the last 40. Itís only been 2 weeks since openers started and pilots are already showing individualism. So much for ďUnity 2020Ē, that lasted long... None of us have absolutely identical needs from a contract. Commuters vs. non-commuters, those about to retire vs. new hires, those with chronic illness vs. extremely healthy etc. etc. We might not like some of the ďsacrificesĒ we have to make in order to gain a well rounded contract that the whole group can benefit from but if we donít make them, weíre doomed to another subpar cba that nobody likes.

That was well said.

Big E 757 07-05-2019 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baradium (Post 2836129)
Just for clarification purposes, they can operate 190s, but they cannot be on any routes where they compete with us directly (DL). With the uptick in SEA departures for DL, that does have the same effect though.

I donít think this is correct. If Skywest bought E190ís or the CSeries, cannibus, and flew them for United, on any route, Delta would have to drop Skywest from their network. Thatís my understanding of our RJ scope language.

rickair7777 07-05-2019 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big E 757 (Post 2848275)
I don’t think this is correct. If Skywest bought E190’s or the CSeries, cannibus, and flew them for United, on any route, Delta would have to drop Skywest from their network. That’s my understanding of our RJ scope language.

This is my understanding as well?

Not only DL pilots, but also DL managers don't want to compete with anybody else using outsourced lift for bigger (than 70 seats) planes.

Regardless, the sense at OO is that they are firmly in the legacy regional feed business and are not interested in compromising that position by expanding into things which might violate the letter or spirit of that business model. Other regionals might, but OO knows which side of their bread is buttered. They aren't going to play with contractual loopholes and risk losing big contracts long term.

Baradium 07-06-2019 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big E 757 (Post 2848275)
I donít think this is correct. If Skywest bought E190ís or the CSeries, cannibus, and flew them for United, on any route, Delta would have to drop Skywest from their network. Thatís my understanding of our RJ scope language.

The limit is certified for 106 passenger seats and configured with 97 or fewer. You can do that with an E-190. Considering that they bypass the MTOW provision with STCs or offering lower GVW versions that are only different by paperwork the seating numbers could be done that way as well is how I'm reading it.

Section 1.D.2.c.1

Regardless, either reading makes it difficult to accomplish.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:02 AM.


User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands