deleted....

I don't think its that absolute. There can be significant value in leaks/rumors if it helps unite the pilot group against concessions we may otherwise be about to sign into a TA (or build up resistance and unity in order to vote no to a TA with concessions).

In this negotiating environment there really shouldn't be any give backs to our already deeply concessionary book. None. The argument can be made that there may be some tweaking here or there that could be interpreted as very minor concessions but with gains in the same section. Like a small work rule change that cost 30 jobs total, but the same section has work rule gains that generate 100 jobs total. Something like that, maybe, maybe could be explained.

But the rumors we're hearing are some pretty deep concessions. More DC-9 sized RJ's? Reducing sick leave and/or increasing harassment/verification? Getting rid of OE trip buys, longer training freezes, pay banding, redefining block time, gutting green slips for reserves, trading PS for pay, possibly even from the upper "unlimited" tier, etc.

Those are the rumors we're hearing. Even if they are bizarrely interpreted as the will of the pilot group, like from a ridiculous interpretation of the survey like "we would rather lose 500 jobs to work rules than be forced to dig ditches 18 hours a day with no health insurance" etc. then telegraphing ill concieved concessions can actually benefit us.

First of all its way easier to head things like this off at the pass pre-TA. And maybe that's happened at least to a small degree with the crying guy rumor getting yelled at by a rep for his concessionary attitude (if true).

It also helps tune the group into looking for embedded concessions instead of zooming into Section 3 with tunnel vision and graying out to everything else.

Should a concessionary TA be presented to us, if the group has been bulding up a "oh hail naw!" level of resistance to concessions and they end up in a TA anyway, it makes it a lot less difficult to vote no, particularly among the "I'll wait to see what's in it before I judge" segment, and maybe even among some of the "automatic yes" voters as well. If we get a pathetic concessionary fulled TA with moderate to nice Section 3 raises (partially paid for with concessions) it becomes much easier to vote no, even among lame threats like the NC will quit and the evil NMB will park you for years for not agreeing to concessions and all that nonsense.

So there can be value to rumors, particularly when true. Even some of the untrue ones may have been true before reps phone's started lighting up from the rumor in the first place.

This is not the time for concessions, and we don't need to "self fund" anything. I would rather see a clean TA with less of a raise than a higher raise partially paid for with concessions, particularly some of the asinine rumors about scope sick leave and productivity.

What gloopy said

Obviously these may or not work depending on your seniority but here are a few ideas you may want to research once the bidding window opens. I don't have PBS access now but there are a few ways to do it:

The best way is probably to set condition "Minimum Credit."

If you are senior enough to bid for specific trips you can pick the trips you want (or enough generic trips to barely get you above the Line Construction Window minimum) and then bid "avoid trips that credit > 0."

This will prevent PBS from putting additional trips on your line after you reached the minimum line credit.

Either of the above will try to build you a minimum credit line. You then have to insert something that will start a reserve bid group if your bids are not honored.

I have had good luck with the "Else start next Bid Group." I think there might be some other ways to this but I don't recall the specific commands.

Anyway with the above in mind review the PBS bidding gouge or call the PBS bid assist guys once they are available. You can also search Youtube for some of the PBS Bid Assist videos.

Good Luck - Scoop

1. Start Pairings
2. Set Condition Minimum Credit Else Start Next Bid Group'
3. Avoid Bad Stuff
4. Award Good Stuff
Award Pairings
5. Start Reserve
6. Prefer Off Desired Days

...or something to that effect. Another option could be not to have PBS go to reserve if it can't give you a min credit line, and take your chances trying to drop on the Swap Board and in PCS. In spite of lots of weekend unstacking PBS for June in my category, I managed to drop two weekend trips -- one in PCS and one on the Swap Board.

I have the schedule I want, even though I couldn't get it in PBS, and I'm not on reserve.

Fixed it for ya...

Take a hard look at what AAL is doing. They essentially have 3 bands now. The middle band 757/767 (currently 161 airframes) is the one with the shortest life expectancy which of course leaves only 2. The high pay band only has orders for an additional 42 aircraft, while the lowest band has orders for 420. The net result is that the career earnings average will be dropping as airplanes are retired (75/76) and replacements (A320/321/737X) come on line.


Interesting.

Data from AAL website.

I wish someone would come back and promote Longevity Based Pay (LBP) based on the logic of career earnings vs. airplane/seat size. :D

http://www.operatorchan.org/arch/src/136165129139.jpg :D
Elliot

Instead of casting stones, how about you take two minutes to look for yourself.

If I were looking for other airlines pay scales , where would I look? The logical thing would be to take a look at the contract comparison that's posted on the DALPA website... let's take a peek and see how current it is:

http://i.imgur.com/QqxC6JNl.png

I'd say that answers your question as to if ALPA is hiding or sharing American's pay from you.

I heard here was some guy that was championing that at one time but got shouted down by the productivity crowd so he's not interested in making that argument any more. I would say however, he had a pretty good point. Funny, but I have heard a lot of junior folks talking about it as of late.