Poker, the 777, and our paychecks
01-01-2009, 08:35 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: Heavily Involved
Posts: 472
Originally Posted by TheBaron
1)
3) CBA 27.H.7.B2 makes me think...NOT. The way I read and understand it, we are paying 50 cents/hour for those that reached the age of 53 before January 1, 2007. I'll probably have to work to 65 to get my high 5 and then will go straight to medicare and never see a return on my contributions (other than the warm fuzzy I get from knowing I helped out another pilot.)
3) CBA 27.H.7.B2 makes me think...NOT. The way I read and understand it, we are paying 50 cents/hour for those that reached the age of 53 before January 1, 2007. I'll probably have to work to 65 to get my high 5 and then will go straight to medicare and never see a return on my contributions (other than the warm fuzzy I get from knowing I helped out another pilot.)
01-01-2009, 08:39 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: 11 Capt
Posts: 509
Originally Posted by TheBaron
My point about congress is that they reflect (somewhat) the feelings of their constituents. Airline pilots are still (incorrectly, granted) thought of as overpaid. If we "take a stand" against the company on this, it will go to arbitration and I can pretty much guarantee we won't be getting any sympathy. What would you suggest we give up now to get the pay rates you would like to see for the 777. The company has already seen that at least 250 members of our group are happy to fly the plane for nothing. After all, it doesn't have a pay rate.
So let it go to arbitration and be given a WB rate. What does the company now need to fully utilize the 777 capabilities? They need the work rule changes that we have with the 380. Guess what? No arbitration for that! Pay or run it like a big 11!
We have something they need in work rules. They have something we want in pay rates....
01-01-2009, 08:41 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: 11 Capt
Posts: 509
Originally Posted by TheBaron
I'm guessing you bid the 777?
Where was your pitch fork and torch when it was decided the little ol' A310 was as productive as the MD-11? If it was about productivity we would have a dozen different pay scales.
Where was your pitch fork and torch when it was decided the little ol' A310 was as productive as the MD-11? If it was about productivity we would have a dozen different pay scales.
No! Didn't bid, Can't bid it but want it to pay a ton of cash because one day I will get it....
01-02-2009, 07:31 AM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: 767A (Ret)
Posts: 6,248
How it was done
Originally Posted by PastV1
But we now have a chance to get a better rate for the 777 with nothing else on the line. We don't have to give on 727 rates or anything else. Right now 777 rates are a stand alone issue.
01-02-2009, 07:39 AM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Originally Posted by PastV1
So let it go to arbitration and be given a WB rate. What does the company now need to fully utilize the 777 capabilities? They need the work rule changes that we have with the 380. Guess what? No arbitration for that! Pay or run it like a big 11!
We have something they need in work rules. They have something we want in pay rates....
We have something they need in work rules. They have something we want in pay rates....
Let's also not forget...We've already spent the negotiating capital to achieve these higher rates, on the A380 rates.
01-02-2009, 07:41 AM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Originally Posted by TheBaron
...What would you suggest we give up now to get the pay rates you would like to see for the 777...
Don't sell us short. We already gave up something in the current contract to get the A380 rates.
01-02-2009, 08:09 AM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: MD-11 FO
Posts: 608
Originally Posted by Busboy
I think a better question is: What is the company willing to give up to get the the "ULR" work rules?
Don't sell us short. We already gave up something in the current contract to get the A380 rates.
Don't sell us short. We already gave up something in the current contract to get the A380 rates.
01-02-2009, 09:00 AM
#48
Ok, No more sleeping Dog
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: MD-11, F/O
Posts: 889
If 700 overmanned is an accurate # (not convinced it is) then it could immediately (with the stroke of a pen) be turned into 540 by eliminating carryover across the board. In addition the 250 guys/gals who just bid the 777 (naively in my opinion) will reduce that over manned # to 290 over the next 24 mos as the 777 hulls arrive. 190 is a very manageable #.
01-02-2009, 09:07 AM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Originally Posted by TheBaron
I don't have to sell us short. We already have 250 eager beavers that did that by bidding the 777 with no pay rate.
So, if the company wants an arbiter to define the payrate for this new A/C. Fine. We haven't really lost anything. The leverage that we don't have with guys bidding it, is counter-balanced by the leverage we have in not giving in on the ULR workrules. Let them fly it like an MD-11, until they agree on a pay package for the 777.
01-02-2009, 09:14 AM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B777 Capt(retired)
Posts: 163
We ALREADY have the ability to eliminate most of carryover.... Just check the "protect min days off" box, bid in conflict/make up only to avg line value. The problem is that we have too many individuals living beyond their means. We may have to adopt a rule to force carryover hours to be dropped within 90 days or the greedy will continue to hose the masses. THIS is the SAME problem as flying DPs.
