Industry Leading without Profit Sharing??
09-21-2014 | 10:52 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Likes: 0
Yes. The USAir 1998 contract was way better than what we have now, fifteen years later, even without adjusting for the horrific inflation since then.
09-21-2014 | 11:00 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
From: rabble rouser
i only have a partial dog in this fight but giving up more scope seems foolish
but if you're going to do it at least try to limit them to making sure that what ever is lost from current scope is given only to the wholly-owneds instead of the bottom dollar contract carriers that fly in competition to aag as well...
but if you're going to do it at least try to limit them to making sure that what ever is lost from current scope is given only to the wholly-owneds instead of the bottom dollar contract carriers that fly in competition to aag as well...
09-21-2014 | 11:09 AM
#23
Thread Starter
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
If Parker and Kirby are going to make good on their commitment to the pilots, they need to do so without any fine print, asterisks or trade-offs. This is simply the same old game of taking advantage of labor with dubious, veiled tactics to obtain advantages at their expense. Of course, since all we can do is ask (they said no
), little chance is there of matching Delta.1.5 billion a quarter and he feels we should give concessions?
Of course they cant find a market for the 319's, they have 50 seaters running hourly flights into those markets, instead of 4/5 daily mainline 319's.
09-21-2014 | 11:12 AM
#24
Thread Starter
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
I doubt it. Seems if it goes to arbitration, the items already addressed by the MOU will stick around unchanged which includes a scope refinement. I almost don't see a reason for the company to negotiate in good faith, knowing that after 30 days it goes to an arbitrator.
09-21-2014 | 11:16 AM
#25
Thread Starter
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
i only have a partial dog in this fight but giving up more scope seems foolish
but if you're going to do it at least try to limit them to making sure that what ever is lost from current scope is given only to the wholly-owneds instead of the bottom dollar contract carriers that fly in competition to aag as well...
but if you're going to do it at least try to limit them to making sure that what ever is lost from current scope is given only to the wholly-owneds instead of the bottom dollar contract carriers that fly in competition to aag as well...
However, the wholly owns need to be on the same page. This crap where the company is transferring the Envoy planes to PSA should never happen. What is PSA becoming...the "Mesa" of the wholly-owns?
09-21-2014 | 11:25 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
From: rabble rouser
Why only partial? Even if you are a new hire in training, you have the biggest dog in the fight. Or are you at one of the wholly ownes? Coming from one my self a while back, I understand and agree with your thoughts.
However, the wholly owns need to be on the same page. This crap where the company is transferring the Envoy planes to PSA should never happen. What is PSA becoming...the "Mesa" of the wholly-owns?
However, the wholly owns need to be on the same page. This crap where the company is transferring the Envoy planes to PSA should never happen. What is PSA becoming...the "Mesa" of the wholly-owns?
most of us would have preferred that anything bigger than 50 had stayed at mainline, but corporate greed knows no bounds
unfortunately aag (and us in the past) make sure we aren't on the same page and are incapable of being so with the history we've all had, psa has frequently been a 'buckler' or backstabber, its a ****ty business...
09-21-2014 | 12:41 PM
#27
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Anyone read the press releases on the f/a TA. The one where APFA. Is quoted about Parker not being able to pay network wages at a smaller carrier. And in her eyes. He stepped up to the plate and has done so?! Now of course this could be all the back slapping at coming to a TA. So both sides have to look good, But maybe there is hope a dog has changed his ways?
09-21-2014 | 02:21 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,775
Likes: 0
I've mentioned before that 321s should pay as Group III since they are essentially slightly smaller 757s without the power. As for the scope, I agree. We've already demonstrated we can fly the E190 just fine at the mainline level. If they want to put 81-85 people on an E175, then bring them to the mainline and the Group I guys can fly them (oh, and let's make Group I pay more competitive too while we're at it).
09-21-2014 | 03:00 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,869
Likes: 187
Delta is getting the latest non NEO versions of the 321. It is not usable in the winter for transcons unless restricted to about 120 pax. That's a 2150 mile trip. PHL to SNN is 2700 miles plus and you have to carry extra fuel on international ops. Not going to happen.
09-21-2014 | 03:09 PM
#30
Banned
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Likes: 0
Delta is getting the latest non NEO versions of the 321. It is not usable in the winter for transcons unless restricted to about 120 pax. That's a 2150 mile trip. PHL to SNN is 2700 miles plus and you have to carry extra fuel on international ops. Not going to happen.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
