I think "soft pay" is important and should be important to MG. I disagree that it would make predicting future costs difficult/impossible. For example: a min day pay of say 5 hours would force the schedules to be built with more efficiency. More efficiency equals more flight time and thus more days off for pilots. If there were a min day pay credit it would help in the prediction of costs down the line +/- 10% (which is a total spitball guess.)
As for pilot numbers we don't currently have the same amount of aircraft utilization that other carriers do. We don't do red eyes and I'm confident that our aircraft block hours don't match those of mainline carriers so I can see why we don't have 14 pilots per airframe. I do agree we need more pilots and with additional aircraft hiring should continue.
I'd definitely like to see a better bidding process that allows for folks to have some control over their schedule. I'd rather have the flexibility to bid for 70 hours of flying and not be forced to have 6 random days of reserve in the middle of what could be 3-4 day off sets. I think as the additional pilots come out of the schoolhouse and onto the line this is both reasonable and practical.
I am eager to see what our negotiating committee presents for us to vote on in the (hopefully near) future. Be safe and have fun!

 

If he doesn't want soft costs then he better up the ante and include it in the base pay. That would be fine with me. Getting soft cost pay here will be a nightmare anyways, its already hard enough to get the little stuff we have now. Whereas an hourly rate based on hours worked is hard for even them to mess up.
I am concerned what we are negotiating for will be quickly eclipsed by what other airlines are already negotiating for. Once again, we will be behind the power curve of other airlines. We need "industry leading" rates. Allegiant is after all one of the nations most profitable airline next to Spirit.
Strike or not, as hard as the negotiating committee is working, I suspect a NO vote on the first round TA will come at hand to up the ante. Or maybe we will be pleasantly surprised.

 

I agree that we work for a "fly it and grieve it" type of management who will try and weasel out of even the most iron-clad of contracts. However, if they don't want soft costs, the hourly rate is going to have to be obscene to get me even remotely interested ($250/hr +). Am I dreaming? Maybe. But either way, they have a big bill coming.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if a deal was reached, presented as this is the best we could get. And it may very well be. Omni comes to mind. It ain't gonna be an AA contract. Remember Teamsters wants to get paid sooner than later.

 

Then we vote no and let the chips fall where they may.

I refuse to be bullied into voting less than we deserve. If anyone has pressure from outside forces it's management... not the pilots.

Remember that AA just recently voted down a "Last and Best offer" in bankruptcy and got a much better contract. The tide has turned and the bill is due.

Oil is down... the economy is up... all major airlines are hiring... we make more money than anyone can believe... our stock is through the roof and 80% of it is owned by people other than MG.

We deserve a great contract. Voting for less than that is simply not an option.

 

A deal will probably be reached, and presented in the 11th hour. If it resembles anything close to Omni, then I will vote no. If this place remains a job, then I will get another one.

 

Just finished my electronic voting ballot to allow a strike. Any guesses how I voted? God bless America and long live freedom!

 

+1 ..............

 

+1........

 

+1...........