texavia

So rates were cut and there is no such damn thing as locked in rates.

texavia

Is SNA why it pays less?

Falcon7

I care. I think it's important.

Mesabah

There will be thousands and thousands of new hires over the next ten years. That isn't news, but getting paid while the company is making billions is what needs to be the focus. This TA is under performing for how much pie is on the table. $6 billion in buy backs is just the start. What will you say when they return $20+ billion to investors over the course of your career, and leave you out of it?

texavia

I'm sure a flake or two of pie crust will fall on the floor

forgot to bid

In the domestic 767 category you were qualified to fly a 767, no?

So 504 WB jobs lost. 99 ERA + 126 767A + 141 ERB + 132 767B.

And it was 11,994 pilots in July 2012 on the SL, 12,888 in July 2015. And I'll amend the 900+ number to 1117 pilots assigned a category.

And does the domestic crew resources number count the same fleet as the PWA counts in Section 1? I've always wondered.

As to the ratio. See anything wrong with this:

Bananie

So now we are talking about profits and revenue, I thought we were talking about jobs.

If they can shift the profits, then doesn't that pretty much make this TA a no brainer? We shift profit sharing to fixed pay rates, if you say they can reduce profits with a pencil, then it makes tons of sense to take fixed pay rates. I thought the no crowd was touting the huge profits and so they get big profit sharing checks and so they don't care about pay rates. Could you guys at least keep your story straight?

You can spin this any way you want but in 2012 you same guys claimed the increased 76 seaters would destroy mainline jobs. Now you make the same claim. I've got 1,700 reasons as to why you are wrong. Block hours are up, pilots required are up, hiring has way outpaced attrition, new captains. Spin, spin, spin away, but facts are facts.

sailingfun

The fact that it is a less capable airframe is why it pays less. It seats fewer, flies slower, has less range and inferior short field performance. That kind of sums it up.

forgot to bid

So I guess we are to assume if not for C2012 we would have hired 0 pilots by now? Makes sense in a pro yes kind of way.

Let me guess. We would have said no thanks to SWA for the 717s and let another airline fly these airplanes the company seems to love so much. Instead we would have refurbished 50 seat jets and flown those around because that's the business model RA wants, small jets, lower capacity, more gates used, less reliability, no first class and economy comfort.

In fact, give me a second to count this, but if C2012 created 1700 jobs then I think it's safe to assume filing bankruptcy created... 2767 pilots. That's a lot of pilots created. Yeah Chapter 11.

newKnow

It's sad when you guys don't even understabd the questions anymore.


You can have industry leading profit sharing. You can have industry leading work rules. You can have industry leading benefits. But, at the end of the day, if these things are worse than what we had before, this TA does not raise the bar.

1.) industry leading profit sharing? Yes. But, less than before. BAR LOWERED.

2.) insustry leading work rules? Maybe. But, we fell back to the pack in some major areas. BAR LOWERED.

3.) Industry leading benefits? Maybe. But, we conceded a lot to get a little. BAR LOWERED.

The only thing you have is pay Abd the question for many is, is it worth it to lower the bar in the areas of: scope, LCA flying, sick leave, profit sharing, and so many other areas, just to get pay rates an average of 3.5% above American?

So, I'll ask again: Did we raise the bar with these items in the TA?