So with the new guarantee of 5:15 per day for reserve, am I right to assume that reserve will pay 84 hours for a 14 day off reserve line (16 days on) and 89:15 for 13 days off reserve line (17 days on)?

One more, so 10am is the earliest report for reserve and 12noon with the commuter option. Do your two flights for the call-in-honest have to be in before 10am or noon?

 

Now I think that's an unfair characterization. I kinda feel like darned if you do and darned if you don't. I know I'm going to regret this but it seems to me you guys are critical of senior guys about scope no matter what we say. Consider the discussion about small jet scope in contract 2012. On the one hand, it's now contractual about getting rid of 100's of 50 seat RJ's for some some more 70+ seaters. On the other hand, the 50 seaters were going away anyway. Okay, you convinced me, they were/are going away anyway. Now why would I want to spend negotiating capital to make it contractual? Isn't that what we did in C2012 and many guys were upset about the deal?

I'm confused.

Denny

 

I believe the way it works is 5:15 will be the min fly (on a trip) day guarantee and reserves will get the same pay/credit for trips flown as lineholders. The reserve guarantee as I understand it is still ALV minus 2 up to 80 hours, not 5:15/reserve day.

 

The minimum reserve guarantee is 72:00 hours and the maximum is 80:00 hours.

Denny

 

The 5:15 only kicks in when you get called in for a trip. Unused reserve days count 0 towards pay/credit.

 

As a junior guy I agree with Denny and T on this. Why spend negotiating capital on something that will take care of itself? I've heard anecdotes of numerous regional carriers that can fill only 10% of their new hire classes. They will implode on their own because the business model is no longer sustainable.

 

Irregarless of the forseeable future their going to outsource as a matter of principal.

 

Elvis,
Quit trying to pretend you have a life and get your post count up!. It's raining where I live and I'm whooped today so I've been monitoring this place too much. I, for one, miss your input.

 

Perhaps, and I hope they do. And I don't think we should "give away the farm" and blow all our negotiating capital on this issue to "fix it for them" or whavever. However it does seem like a great time to buy low WRT scope at the DC-9-10 level. If the large (70-90 seater) RJ's were all one type and on our certificate, they'd be our single biggest fleet. That's an awful lot of jobs and if we can take a sizeable bite out of that for little to no "cost" I'm in favor of it.

To any extent there is anything that can be called a cost anyway, I'd suspect it would be more centered around what rates they pay and things like that. Of course if we brought them all on our list and staffed them with new pilot positions on the bottom of our list, some would still claim we passed up some phenom raise or whatever. In any case I see a potential opportunity and we should capitalize if the terms are right.

 

What made some upset about C2012 RJ scope was the addition of a lot of the largest 90 seater "RJ's" (configured to 76 seats with a management desired first class). The 50's clearly were going away. I would not be in favor of any kind of additional "scope deal" that gave the company more large RJ's for any reason, especially if they want to use the larger hulls to fly more outsourced pax with a critical pilot supply shortage at the outsourced level. I could even see them trying to float some scheme where DCI gets larger [~100 seat?] "RJ's" in exchange for fewer 70's or even 76er's which are really 90's. No thanks. That would be a concession and a future downturn poison pill that would come back to bite us hard later even if the net DCI seats were reduced. The 76 seat and weight limits should be involitile. If anything, those numbers need to be revised downward.

I'm sure they will try even larger RJ's for some kind of carrot to bail them out of their pathetic DCI MBA experiment. I hope we don't fall for it. But I want larger RJ's reduced and the limits reigned in to some degree, if not entirely.