Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > American
New Pay Rates For Those Interested >

New Pay Rates For Those Interested

Notices

New Pay Rates For Those Interested

Old 01-31-2015, 06:39 AM
  #81  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Posts: 143
Default

Originally Posted by aa73 View Post
Edit: my union guy just contacted me again and corrected himself. It appears you're right. The language used to say "certificated", now it says "configured."

So he then said that it would probably be grieved due to the fact that the equipment doesn't show up in Group 1, but we'd probably lose that.

Disregard all I said and bravo for pointing that out. My bad.

Wow. Now you figure that out. You are example #1 to argue against giving line pilots a vote on anything but simple black-and-white issues.

Be prepared to be surprised by more language you thought said one thing / was in there once but isn't anymore / wasn't in there in the first place, etc., etc., and is now being grieved because the Company has just used that fact to walk all over you.

Why did nobody see that the B717 would be a Group I aircraft, which if operated at newAAmerican would be operated at a huge pay discount to Delta peers??!!

Not that the 66% will pay any attention, but you really need to look past the shiny $ bait to see where the real deal is. Fools.


Originally Posted by Just trust them View Post
Delta 2015 Pay (AA proposed)


CA/12yr FO/12yr FO/4yr


B717 195.19 (149.18) 133.30 (101.88) 115.78 (88.49)


E195 163.88 (149.18) 111.94 (101.88) 97.21 (88.49)


E190 139.42 (149.18) 95.21 (101.88) 82.70 (88.49)


Group 1 is any aircraft configured with 117 seats or less. Configured, not type certificated.

Delta operates the Boeing 717 configured with 110 seats, new-AAmerican operates the Embraer 190 with 99 seats.

A 'Yes' vote means that new-AAmerican pilots will fly the E190 with 10% less seats than Delta's B717, for 24% less pay.

Standard configuration for the E195-E2 is 132 seats in single class. It can be configured for 117 seats in a First/economy plus/economy configuration.

When Doug Parker gets his 117-seat aircraft, the new-AAmerican pilots will be flying 7% more people in it than a full Delta B717. For 24% lower pay.

A large part of Group II operations (MD-80, A319) will be done by 117 seat Group I aircraft.

Meanwhile, Group III operations will be transitioning to operation by Group II A321 aircraft.

The Company proposal is a trojan-horse. The advance pay-raise is coming with some very long and very thick strings attached.
Just trust them is offline  
Old 01-31-2015, 07:12 AM
  #82  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,889
Default

To which my answer is, with your No vote, the group 1 language was still the same. So even by voting No, the company could still go after the 717s as a group 1 aircraft. It was in the MTA, not in the JCBA.

So who's the prime example here Sir? I think we were all screwed the minute the MTA was signed and the cost neutral arbitration backstop was put in. Yes or No, the outcome was that the company wins regardless.

Brilliant play by the company, and APA fell for it lock stock and barrel.

Not everyone here is "blinded by the money"... I wasn't. I chose between bad and worse. You seem to think that you had the company by the balls by voting no. I disagree: following the advice and warnings from the USAir guys, these guys (P/K) had everything planned out with arbitration and had no pressing need for the items they got from us.
aa73 is offline  
Old 01-31-2015, 07:23 AM
  #83  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Posts: 143
Default

Originally Posted by aa73 View Post
To which my answer is, with your No vote, the group 1 language was still the same. So even by voting No, the company could still go after the 717s as a group 1 aircraft. It was in the MTA, not in the JCBA.

So who's the prime example here Sir? I think we were all screwed the minute the MTA was signed and the cost neutral arbitration backstop was put in. Yes or No, the outcome was that the company wins regardless.

Brilliant play by the company, and APA fell for it lock stock and barrel.

Not everyone here is "blinded by the money"... I wasn't. I chose between bad and worse. You seem to think that you had the company by the balls by voting no. I disagree: following the advice and warnings from the USAir guys, these guys (P/K) had everything planned out with arbitration and had no pressing need for the items they got from us.
You remain the prime example. Nothing personal, there are thousands who were just as ill-informed when they cast a vote.

Your ignorance of the "certificated versus configured" extends to the use of leverage, and what constitutes leverage in negotiation. A negotiation which never happened.

It was never a choice between "bad and worse". It was a choice between a negotiated contract, or accepting a 'deal' that the Company unilaterally proposed.

And if you think they are done dealing, read Wilson's press release. 66% means that Jerrold blew it by at least 15%. It isn't over.
Just trust them is offline  
Old 01-31-2015, 07:37 AM
  #84  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,889
Default

So I'm a prime example because I misread **one** word that was not even part of the JCBA we were voting on.

Obviously you have read every word of every contract you've ever voted on and have never made a mistake in the language. You've been 100% crystal clear and were always able to regurgitate the info with perfect accuracy to anyone who dared ask.

Please. Get off your high horse. The truth is that nobody understands a contract 100%: there are always gotchas buried in them. We make mistakes on the interpretation of the language. Rather, we make an educated choice after as much research as we can, while comparing and weighing the options between yes and no.

"Choice between a negotiated contract...?" Uh huh. I'm sure arbitrator Bloch would be right there with ya nodding in agreement. Because we have such a STELLAR record in winning past arbitrations, obviously Bloch was not going to touch a thing in our green book in order to maintain that stellar record.

Dude, you don't realize that ParKirbLass had everything planned out no matter which way we voted. If you think they were going to come crawling back to us with a no vote, well, all if can say is you fell right into the trap they were planning.

We were screwed the day the MTA was signed. Period.

I voted for the best possible and logical course of action while securing an industry leading pay rate that our DL and UA bros can shoot for in their negotiations. I'm fine with that and if you disagree, you're not the first.

You voted to keep yourself well below them, all in the effort to hold on to our bk green book rules that would be thrown in front of a company friendly arbitrator who would rule based on his interpretation of cost neutral. You're fine with that and I respect your choice, because you researched it...just like I researched mine.
aa73 is offline  
Old 01-31-2015, 09:45 AM
  #85  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Hueypilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Position: B737
Posts: 1,204
Default

Comparing DL's 717 pay to our Group I is a moot point. DL doesn't use the group pay structure. A better comparison would use their own E190/195 rates. Otherwise you're comparing apples and oranges.
Hueypilot is offline  
Old 01-31-2015, 10:08 AM
  #86  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Posts: 143
Default

Originally Posted by aa73 View Post
Please. Get off your high horse. The truth is that nobody understands a contract 100%: there are always gotchas buried in them.
Please. Get off your Trojan Pony!

You are the one who was oblivious to what constitutes a Group I aircraft.

The truth is if you don't understand a Contract 100%, and the gotchas buried within, then you should not be permitted to vote it up or down.
Just trust them is offline  
Old 01-31-2015, 10:14 AM
  #87  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Posts: 143
Default

Originally Posted by Hueypilot View Post
Comparing DL's 717 pay to our Group I is a moot point. DL doesn't use the group pay structure. A better comparison would use their own E190/195 rates. Otherwise you're comparing apples and oranges.
Here you go: Delta Pay first, New AA pay in bold

CA/12yr FO/12yr FO/4yr

E195 163.88 (149.18) 111.94 (101.88) 97.21 (88.49)


E190 139.42 (149.18) 95.21 (101.88) 82.70 (88.49)


How 'bout them E195 apples!


And you're right about not comparing Delta's Boeing 717 to any potential Group I aircraft at AA. The Delta Boeing 717 only seats 110 pax, whereas AA Group 1 aircraft can seat 117.

"F" NO in 2020. Only 5 years to go!
Just trust them is offline  
Old 01-31-2015, 10:32 AM
  #88  
Gets Weekends Off
 
NuGuy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,823
Default

Funny thing about trip construction and soft time (minimums, rigs, etc):

Every airline uses computers to generate trips. The program they use has one priority above all: minimize soft time. You can't take the trips you currently fly and make any kind of assumption than they'll stay the same, and you just get paid more. I guarantee it doesn't work like that.

As an example: At DAL, until relatively recently, there was only a duty period average of 5:15. That meant that 3 day trips that paid 10:30 were not only possible, but fairly common, and you got to appreciate a nice 30 hour layover somewhere.

The answer? Average Daily Guarentee. Every calendar day pays 5:15 (with some exception). We'll trade that bad old duty period average for a daily average and fixed the problem, right?

Well, sorta. The law of unintended consequences is always in effect.

Now the computer has a whole new set of restrictions to play with in order to minimize soft time...but the DPA has been deleted. So what's the computer to do? Ah ha! Multiple duty periods in a calendar day!

Report early, one leg. 12 hour "day over". Red eye back. 12 hour day over, late departure to west time zone, 12 hour layover. Wash, rinse, repeat. 4 day trip with 5 duty periods that would have paid 26:15 hours now pays 21.

Point is every change has a consequence, and you can't use the current trips as any kind of guide.

Nu
NuGuy is offline  
Old 01-31-2015, 10:39 AM
  #89  
Gets Weekends Off
 
fr8tmastr's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: recalled until the next round of right sizing to optimise synergies
Posts: 199
Default

Originally Posted by Just trust them View Post
You remain the prime example. Nothing personal, there are thousands who were just as ill-informed when they cast a vote.

Your ignorance of the "certificated versus configured" extends to the use of leverage, and what constitutes leverage in negotiation. A negotiation which never happened.

It was never a choice between "bad and worse". It was a choice between a negotiated contract, or accepting a 'deal' that the Company unilaterally proposed.

And if you think they are done dealing, read Wilson's press release. 66% means that Jerrold blew it by at least 15%. It isn't over.
You aren't kidding, the company left a couple items on the table, they will be coming for it. Get ready for the next deal. the only question left is how cheaply they can buy it from this spineless pilot group. the best part is, we will hear the same idiots proclaiming the same excuses on why we have to give up those items for another, this time less shiny nickel.
fr8tmastr is offline  
Old 01-31-2015, 10:49 AM
  #90  
Working weekends
 
satpak77's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: Left Seat
Posts: 2,384
Default

Originally Posted by CamYZ125 View Post
This post sums up the reason this whole thing passed. From old to young, everyone is willing to ***** themselves out for a quick buck. Pathetic.
this is under Pilot 101
satpak77 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
A321
American
89
01-28-2015 06:55 PM
P-3Bubba
Major
114
11-08-2013 07:16 PM
jsled
United
7
11-28-2012 11:08 PM
Bill Lumberg
Major
61
06-11-2012 10:55 AM
marlonmoneda1
Regional
82
02-13-2011 11:12 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices