|
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1057795)
this is where we consult the "pilot surveys" keeping in mind that in no case will anything be less than SWA for domestic and we must keep our current 3/4 pilot metrics even if the FTDT regs gut them to try and pay for regional safety improvements.
|
So I heard ALPA has a new proposal from SWA and is going to let the pilots vote on this one. The kicker?!? it is WORSE than the first proposal. Nice job again ALPA
|
Originally Posted by PilotFrog
(Post 1057823)
So I heard ALPA has a new proposal from SWA and is going to let the pilots vote on this one. The kicker?!? it is WORSE than the first proposal. Nice job again ALPA
This isn't an attack on you, but more me adding my "Atta' boy ALPA, knew you would disappoint, again." The real victims here are the AT guys, who will never get the settlement they deserve, thanks largely in part to ALPA. |
Originally Posted by PilotFrog
(Post 1057823)
So I heard ALPA has a new proposal from SWA and is going to let the pilots vote on this one. The kicker?!? it is WORSE than the first proposal. Nice job again ALPA
|
Overheard 777 CA (senior, bidding 9 or so<--Dont quote me on the seniority) brag on his beautiful schedule and pay. He also was explaining to my friend that his life was excellent and that his compensation was very good. He looked over 60 but what do I know. I just cringed and decided we needed more Carls at the top of the list.
I have a feeling there are some old timers that do not want to disrupt their final years. Truly Sad because these old timers where the first ones to congratulate the outgoing age 60 retirees. TEN |
Originally Posted by PilotFrog
(Post 1057823)
So I heard ALPA has a new proposal from SWA and is going to let the pilots vote on this one. The kicker?!? it is WORSE than the first proposal. Nice job again ALPA
|
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1057810)
I see what you are getting at here, but for the E190 (or equivalent) JB pay scales are the absolute floor in C12K. OK that means contract 12,000 as someone pointed out, but C12 just sounds lame without the K Anyway if we can't profitably operate them here at non union cost slasher ultra low JB rates (as an absolute negotating room floor) then we shouldn't have them. Not to mention the E190 isn't a 100 seater unless you run it all coach, which we wouldn't. We don't even like all coach CRJ-700's anymore. So the E190 is more of a 90 seater anyway.
Sidebar: even the 717, which we call a 117 seater, would seat more in all coach. OTOH they used to be 80 seaters at MidWest airlines. Anyway: I think where you meant to go with this was that if it came down to status quo on today's outsourcing of the 76 and under seat range, could we rationalize a B scale to get that back, if it was the only way to do so? Yes. B scales suck, but they suck less than outsourcing. That does not mean you are "advocating" a B scale. It merely means you are willing to accept it to get the work back if that was the only way to get it back. |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1055728)
I think your assessment is probably correct. What I don't understand is why the loss of just the trim tab would cause full deflection UP on the elevator which is what would have been required to produce 9 to 10 G's? Also, he didn't GLOC instantly because he radioed a mayday after he went vertical. Since GLOC produces nearly instantaneous unconsciousness, it seems to point to something else.
Carl |
Okay, let me re-rack this because I think it's being confused for being pro lower expectations and it's not. What we demand in C12K-9988 is different, I just want to think through the demands.
Example: "We want SWA pay and work rules!" Delta says, sounds good to me! And starts MD'ing and furloughing like mad the next day. Under SWA work rules we're probably massively overstaffed. Whoops. See to me numbers are a joke. I get paid probably around $270/hr at Delta Air Lines. I did the math. ATL MD88 B, I make $270/hr. Not bad for MD88 reserve. Too bad I don't make 70 hours at $270/hr. Retort: "We want SWA pay, work rules and scope!" = closer to what we all want. But still, is that going to work? Are we going to get SWA pay and give up jobs in the process? I mean what work rules are we going for here? And are pilots going to be able to pick up 100 hours of hard flying every month? Are we okay with FedEx/SWA pay rates and a cap of 75 hours to keep jobs? DAL88 drives that home all the time in that he wants W2 parody. I agree. It's the package not the numbers. But what I fear is pay will cost jobs if this isn't thought through and I'm just trying to think it through because jobs trump pay. If you said 25% pay raise or 25% growth in the headcount, it's a no brainer, give me the growth. I'll make more money with growth.
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1057784)
Word!
ftb these games are not productive.
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1057810)
I see what you are getting at here, but for the E190 (or equivalent) JB pay scales are the absolute floor in C12K. OK that means contract 12,000 as someone pointed out, but C12 just sounds lame without the K Anyway if we can't profitably operate them here at non union cost slasher ultra low JB rates (as an absolute negotating room floor) then we shouldn't have them. Not to mention the E190 isn't a 100 seater unless you run it all coach, which we wouldn't. We don't even like all coach CRJ-700's anymore. So the E190 is more of a 90 seater anyway.
Sidebar: even the 717, which we call a 117 seater, would seat more in all coach. OTOH they used to be 80 seaters at MidWest airlines. Anyway: I think where you meant to go with this was that if it came down to status quo on today's outsourcing of the 76 and under seat range, could we rationalize a B scale to get that back, if it was the only way to do so? Yes. B scales suck, but they suck less than outsourcing. That does not mean you are "advocating" a B scale. It merely means you are willing to accept it to get the work back if that was the only way to get it back. |
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
(Post 1057816)
I agree here. Instead of apparent shooting LOW to hit already managed expectations, let's go after all areas of the SWA contract, and negotiate from there, above it. SWA doesn't have as many scope problems, so we would have to branch off there and focus on specific scope wants and needs. The survey hasn't been completed yet, but some reps already give expectations in the form of head shakes and winces. That has to stop.
Let's not forget SWA has the 1-2-3 rule too! I want that too, or we should make sure that is monetized in our rates above the SWA floor! |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:38 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands