With a comment like this, just reminds me that you have not realized that the big d bought Comair. Now ask yourself why they bought Comair. Scope is the key and evidently to use your logic, YOU decided to give it up for more pay.....

 

I see what you are saying in a "theoretical" sense, but I have met reps in 3 of the LEC's and I seriously doubt any of the one's I've met would send an agreement out that doesn't have the maximum possible gains. (I have PLENTY of reasons I would vote no, evaluating the total package will determine that, I'm not a "one-issue" voter)

Every Rep and MEC bureaucrat will have their pay calculated based on the new contract, so what incentive does that provide for anyone to minimize their own pay? That doesn't appear logical to me.

 

Pay us by the duty hour. I'll take a cut in the published hourly pay rates to get that.

Say you make $100/hr as a Co-pilot or $200/hr as a Captain. You get a typical 2 day NB trip with 18 hours of duty and 10.5 hours of flight time. You'd make the same amount of money if you were paid by the duty hour and took a near 50% cut in pay. So, I'll proudly sign off on pay by the duty hour and no more than a 15% cut in hourly rate.

 

Hello 15 years ago, nice to see you again. Instead of pointing out what we already know was done wrong, how about you help fix it instead?

 

That argument pops up from time to time and I believe it is a red herring.

What if our reps and MEC bureaucrats believe this is the best they can do but at the same time recognize that it is unacceptable to the pilot group. What to do? Take a proposal to the negotiating table that you THINK won't be acceptable and that you THINK the big bad wolf (NMB) will blow your house down over? Or take a proposal to the negotiating table that is well below what is acceptable to your pilot group and then try to sell us on the idea that it was the best we could do and there is unacceptable risk in voting it down? Which sounds more like what we've experienced before?

This is just my opinion, but I think a lot of these guys (reps and bureaucrats) get so caught up in the minutia and in their own world of challenges that they lose sight of principle and the big picture. I don't think any (or at least most) of them want anything less than the most we can get. Sure it effects them! But I think many of them are so caught up in their world of proactive engagement that they don't want to do anything to possibly jeopardize that. It's not hard for management's professional negotiators to figure out who they're dealing with, what motivates them, and what scares them.

Getting a restorative contract and reeling in scope is NOT going to be easy. It will involve risk. None of us got to where we are by avoiding things that are difficult and by taking zero risk. Let's not get so caught up in the size of the challenge we face that we give up. Just my 2 cents...

 

I know you are joking but you are actually on to something. The only problem is that your rate decrease is far too large. Think what would happen to a turn with 7 hours of block and a 1 hour turn time. Even adding in a 1 hour pre-flight and a 1/2 hour post-flight you would have 9 1/2 hours of duty.

Scoop

 

Well our opinions on the intelligence, capability, and fortitude of the elected reps is just different I guess.

 

I guess the right thing is improve the rigs. Have your cake and eat it too....

 

I just met Superpilot!! I feel like I met a rock star -- the inventor of underboob. I think I asked him for his autograph.

Hope he doesn't think I'm a stalker.....

 

After yesterday's hat discussion, I feel posting this is appropriate: