When Flossing isn’t Enough
 

RJ’s to DAL, ORD, MCI, AUS, Hub -to-Hub? We are talking large metro areas here!

SCOPE over PENSIONS!

Time to right the ship and eliminate carve outs, remember it’s not about me it’s about US. I refuse to work for less to support your pension. All of us or none of us.

If you’re not management yet, you will be. Shut your division-creating pie hole.

This is bad trolling. This thread should be deleted. You give former VX pilots a bad name.

Yeah this is unnecessary. The NC will balance all interests accordingly, as it should be (if for some reason they don't, whatever they cook up won't pass). Should be something for everyone.

It’s only unnecessary to give up something when we already have nothing, his or her point regarding how our regional flying is far surpassing what should be tolerated by main line pilots is correct. We need a meaningful scope clause and we need it yesterday

That's not what he said though. What he wrote was very divisive.

More like we needed it 20 years ago.

Agree with you shy and yes 20 years ago would be more appropriate than yesterday.

The only thing that divides this pilot group is section 28.

No, it doesn't divide anything. What an insult to the AS pilot group. You (we) brought zero CBA to the merger. The AS CBA encompassed us along with some payrate and 401K DC improvements. The contract had already established the AS pilots' retirement plans before this merger ever came about. A very small amount of pilots are in the status quo plan and most are in the rebalanced portion. Every one of their pilots hired after 2010 is in the same DC plan as the rest of us. Section 28 has a specific section applicable only to VX pilots. As it stands, VX pilots are in full compliance with the CBA.


I cannot believe there are VX pilots calling for selling out AS pensions in order to secure scope and section 25 improvements. Your comments are divisive and only hurts unity going forward for contract 2020.

I respect your opinion but I don’t agree with it.

I want an industry standard contract

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.

Now we've all seen the video valuing status quo and rebalance math as $13/hr off the rest of the pilot group. That kind of divisive math should not divide us. Those kinds of tactics are typical throughout history to get one part of the pilot group to turn against another. Anyway I'm impressed with the L-AS pilots professionalism on forums, not a single AS pilot responded in this thread. :)

I'd like to see a statistic on how much of our flying is outsourced compared to other airlines (that outsource)

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

x2.

Flip side of that is calls to spend negotiating capital on enhancing the DC for those who have the DB. If you go there, why not also try to get a DB for the folks who don't have it? All hypothetical, frankly in today's world I would not want my retirement in the hands of the company, the stock market is risky but at least you have a measure of control there.

If you’re 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 won’t be the ones to feel the effects of the ever growing outsourcing. Most of them will be long retired when the first 190’s “operated by Skywest”, 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. We’ve already reached the “every man for himself” stage and negotiations just opened this week.... I was told that VX brought over 800 guys ready to fight for better?!?!

There are basically two rational long term retirement investment strategies. Which one you should exercise depends on your assumptions. The first assumes that there will NOT be a total meltdown of the US economy. The second assumes there WILL be a total meltdown of the US economy.

1. Invest in a well diversified stock portfolio or BETTER YET Index 500 mutual funds. Reinvest dividends and realized capital gains. In good times, you’ll be making more than the overwhelming majority while owning a share of the entire economy. In bad times, you will be buying An increasing share of the market at a discounted rate.

2. Buy and store guns, ammo, and freeze dried food, because you are going to need them.

The reason for not trying to reinstate a DB plan is the fact that AS will absolutely NOT go for it. Until they "solved" the problem over a decade ago, the DB plan was costing them $100M a year to keep it solvent. Why? Because they had shifted from buying retirees annuities to self-financing the plan.

Since Shy says the VXers never had a DB plan, I don't see the problem. Believe me, getting 15.5% in a DC plan sounds GREAT considering all I ever got was 3% coupled with the DB plan with a half lump sum payout.

I agree with you...I prefer having my advisors manage my 401k money than to have a pension that never changes regardless of the economic landscape.

What makes you think he/she is ex-virgin? That’s pretty presumptuous of you buddy. Now who’s giving VX guys a bad reputation.

The guys who had their pension should be allowed to keep it and like it or not, we ALL should fight to defend that. In addition, we should fight to improve the 401k that's in place for the rest of us....

+1



10 charac

Industry all going to 16% in future years
 

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

For what it’s worth the only regional out there that would be allowed to operate 190s is Horizon. Skywest can’t fly anything over 76 seats /85K GTOW due to scope restrictions for competing carriers (ie can’t fly 190s for AS if they’re 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.

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.

That was well said.

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.

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.