Industry Leading without Profit Sharing??
 

The company is on the verge of presenting the counter proposal for compensation, and apparently Scott Kirby says he will throw us "industry leading" pay, but no profit sharing.

How can our pay be industry leading without profit sharing. This is complete crap. Scott...keep dreaming you big goon. Give us more per hour pay, yet every year Delta still takes home more with the addition of profit sharing to the bottom line? Show me increased hourly pay and profit sharing and I'll show you industry leading pay.

Also, seems he is more then willing to fall back on the arbitrated JCBA agreement if we cant come to terms according to his remarks at the Morgan Stanley Conference this past week.

And the biggest concern (at least it should be to the bottom 75% of us) is the company's request for scope concessions.

:mad:

NO SCOPE RELIEF!! No matter how big the raise!! It won't matter!

The MOU already increased outsourced flying 33% over current levels! Where is the line?

Pilots will sell their children for another $10/hr. It's beyond insane.

Also, look beyond hourly rates. I could care less if our rates are industry leading. I want industry leading QOL.

Give us the original 1998 contract and I would vote yes all day..... The rigs, the vacation, the work rules, the pension, the rates.... The scope...

We could have just shut down the "F"ing negotiating committee 20 years ago and we would all be just fine.

If we don't shut it down now, we will continue to work more and more days a month. Has anyone noticed how many lines have 18+ days?

I hear the "industry leading" pay comes with scope concessions....

What is Delta's scope?

I think at that same conference Kirby discussed how they are taking mostly 321 deliveries because it's getting harder and harder to find a mission that the 319 makes sense to operate on. Scope could come the way of giving up more seats outsourced to republic etc.

Remember the last Kirby proposal sucked. I expect this one to suck also

Can the scope be changed if it goes to arbitration? God I hope not....

Also industry leading pay for less than a year then delta gets their new contract

May I ask, do you work for AA as a pilot?

The 1997 contract would be a large pay cut for me. I'm a 777 FO for American.

I believe it was $134 an hour for 777 FO. It's been awhile and not sure exactly.

Yes, the vacation was awesome Selected an unselected 48 hour prior to Vac start paid drops.

I'm guessing you mean hypothetically.

He's a USAirways guy. I assume he means the US Air (East) 1998 contract. It was parity +1%, and hands-down among the best contracts in the industry -- money + work-rules + scope. The best of all worlds...

I predict we lose scope in return for pay. Way too many guys at both airlines that are in their last ten years that couldn't care less about the guys who have 20+ to go. Hope I'm wrong

Me too......

Three.



Filler

How about an "auto +1%" as in if UAL or DAL get a raise, we automatically get a raise to make sure we meet theirs plus 1%.

In other words, we really don't get industry leading pay as it comes with an offsetting price. For them, it's essentially a "cost-neutral" position which if rejected will keep them looking like the generous good guys and the pilots unreasonable. He's certainly NOT offering an industry leading "package" (comparable to Delta), but ONE industry leading aspect cancelled out by a concession.

The question then is, does the APA leadership's more senior majority rationalize giving up scope issues that really won't touch them for more $$$ ?

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 :cool:), little chance is there of matching Delta.

321's are group II and as the 757/767's leave, more pilots will be taking pay cuts to the lower pay category. As far as scope, expect increased seating and gross weight to possibly reach the E-190, but certainly the higher gross E-175 new variants anticipated. Scope is a slippery slope and once you're there, it's difficult not to slide further.

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).

Can scope be diminished if it goes to arbitration?

There's MANY of us junior with only 10-15 years left and would be hit hard by such a move too, but yes, that's been the past conduct. So once again, junior mainline pilotds find themselves standing on this street nervously eyeing who is behind us and if any buses come into view. :cool:

My advice is if a senior union leader walks up behind you at the same time a bus is barreling down the street to drop to the ground. ;)

I believe so. The APA has stated they plan to persue all flying in E-175 aircraft and so I suppose if APA opens the door on that, management is free to persue relaxed scope, although APA/USAPA proposed no changes to scope in their initial proposal to management, so we'll have to wait and see what, if any changes management wants. Parker claimed one of his primary goals was to return AA back to its prominent position in part due to a positive employee/management relationship and this is his chance to demonstrate that or show his card that it was all bunk. I think it more likely then not, AA will ultimately return to its horrid pilot/management relationship and Parker and Kirby will just shrug their shoulders on the way to the bank. I hope I'm wrong, but the vibe isn't good based on what I've heard.

I think management often doesn't really think long-term when it comes to staffing, and while we all understand things might get ugly at the regional level, management is willing to look the other way for a while and pretend it doesn't exist. Given that, I think at this point, it might be worth pushing for the DAL rates +3% (what APA proposed) with no scope changes. In 2018-2019 as the staffing problems become worse at the regional level and all the majors are competing for a shrinking pool of pilots, I think we'd have more leverage at that point to push to get the E175 flying in house and get a truly "industry-leading" contract. I know that's not what everyone wants now, but you gotta understand how management thinks and how they are willing to negotiate. The current DAL +3% is actually cheaper in the long run than waiting for 2016 pay parity.

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.

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...

Agreed. I dont like the fact that Kirby, being the snot nose punk he is, could potentially play us for fools.
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.

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.

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?

yeah i'm at a WO, and i agree what aag is doing to/with us is crap, but unfortunately its the nature of the beast...

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...

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?

Speaking of the 321. I had two or three US 75/76 guys telling me that the company is working to get new A321 certified to fly transatlantic to Ireland and Scotland. Any truth to this? Or are they just smoking some really good we... I mean tobacco!

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.

AA flies 321 transcon's with 106 seats (I think) and it seems to do OK. It certainly won't replace the 757 on SA terrain destinations, that's for sure. I hear it flies like a heavily loaded Cherokee Six with the higher U seating capacities.

Those 106 seaters are in a market by themselves, all biz class seats.
Competing with the UAL PS service..

The 321 doesn't like to go up and then once you get it there it doesn't want to come down.

Well...

There we have it... PSA and PDT will be used to whipsaw with AA. They want "flow", but don't realize that they just screw themselves and mainline also.

Good luck, Envoy is holding the line while others passed it. I would say that Envoy will be shut down in a couple of years.

we have flow at pdt, not sure how we're screwing mainline when they gave it to us

and envoy is trying to hold the line by trying to strangle us in their last rejected offer to aa

Sounds like Viagra.

You just don't see it. The savings PDT and PSA are giving to Parker are the ones used against AA.

They will inflate PSA and PDT, people will be stuck in pay 12/4 with the promise of flow.

Envoy flow is about reducing senior payroll while creating savings with the 12/4 cap. PSA and PDT flow is about reducing payroll but at the same time growing the airline with the illusion of career progression.

The flow is a tool for Managment, it haven't worked at envoy in the last 14 years and won't work today.

I don't know what you mean by "trying to strangle us in their last rejected offer to aa". We rejected the Bscale 3 times, while PDT and PSA accept the first offer.

PDT, PSA and Envoy are pawns in the Parker game.

Think you rejected a C scale as your already on a B scale, which is what regionals are unfortunately.

True, can't argue.

AA's are Biz/Coach Plus/and coach.
7576FO

I think you are exactly right. I for one do not blame them for doing what is best for them right now, but ultimately there will be consequences that will affect them. If flow through is the main motivation it will be meaningless as more mainline flying is replaced.
Secondly, I think eventually we will see an erosion of scope from all the majors in exchange for higher pay. Again, short term thinking from those in their last decade or so who see the direction of airline flying, larger regional jets and proportionately larger mainline jets but less upward movement for both.

I'd like to think there won't be any more scope sales. The current union leadership claims that it's non-negotiable, so they seem to understand. And the next decade will see many new mainline pilots who were negatively affected by the regional airline C-scale (B-scale seems a little generous). Of course, pilots have been known to suffer from myopia when a little money is dangled in front of them, so we'll see.

As for profit sharing, that's not a deal-breaker for me. It is theoretically possible to have industry leading pay without it. However, I would like to see some assurance that every pilot's bottom line W2 compensation is in line with his or her respective peer at United or Delta. If the company wants to contractually lock themselves in to paying at a level which would still meet or exceed what the other guys make, including their profit sharing, well then fine. But I think to do that would require a lot of complicated legal triggers to make sure it happens, or just a really high base rate.

I think it's probably easier for everyone if we have a system comparable to Delta's. Lots of money guaranteed, and if, God forbid, the company does well then we can share in that, too.

And no scope sales.:)