Though if the E190 order was indeed cancelled because there is no pay scale for them, are we also canceling the A350 order?[/QUOTE]

The 2012 contract includes a pay rate for the E190. If we don't get a contract prior to delivery the 350 rate will be set in arbitration.

The 2012 contract includes a pay rate for the E190. If we don't get a contract prior to delivery the 350 rate will be set in arbitration.[/QUOTE]


Do you think the company will want a 350 rate before they begin 744 displacements?

I tend to believe that they would really like to see the 744 drivers not move over to the 777 and cause a cascading training mess. Having a 350 rate equal to the 777 would be a big help to the guys that run the training ouji (sp?) board.

It's their mess; it could give us some more leverage for TA-2.

Bar,

I'm all for the E jets to be flown by us. Unfortunately, they were part of this TA...a carrot. I'm all for the carrot. But, the carrot was coupled with a stick. To eat the carrot, you got whacked by the stick.

This stick was partially a loss on the top end of scope. It doesn't take a ton of imagination to see that when you delete the growth opportunity on the big high paying stuff and replace it with lower paying smaller gauge jets (which pay significantly less than similar gauge we already fly) where the trajectory is.

I'm not certain you understand this completely because you are in the seniority band where you would fly left seat on the e jet...great! For me and many others, we want the jets at mainline but, they are behind us seniority-wise. It's a carrot I want, but not to get hit by the stick of big jet opportunity loss.

Do you think the company will want a 350 rate before they begin 744 displacements?

I tend to believe that they would really like to see the 744 drivers not move over to the 777 and cause a cascading training mess. Having a 350 rate equal to the 777 would be a big help to the guys that run the training ouji (sp?) board.

It's their mess; it could give us some more leverage for TA-2.[/QUOTE]

I dont think it gives us any leverage. The displacement this fall will not be impacted at all by the A350. A year from now with the last 747 displacement guys will be in the window to displace to the 350. We will long before that have a payrate. The company need only serve notice they want to enter talks on the rate. We have to enter talks within 15 days. If no agreement in 90 days it goes to binding arbitration.

Scam of, as you know the change to top end scope would have been so small it would have been hard to even see its effect. It's likely the company will be in compliance with the current scope in the next measurement period. The change at the bottom was however huge. We were looking at 500 captains jobs with a fleet in the 70 to 90 jet range the company planned.

The company is in compliance on an EASK basis with the AF/KLM/AZ JV for now. Going to a BH balance meant little (statistically nothing for the time being) and had the potential to benefit wide-body jobs going forward. I would not support a plan that cost a single job. (period, full stop)

The not-so-glamorous domestic work is ~ 78% of our flying. If that were increased by 16%, then it would drive more hiring.

Please explain how block hours could be an improvement going forward.

Also, "statistically nothing for the time being." There's that rearward looking data supporting the future "we didn't think they'd do that."

Hub to hub longer distance rj flying is a leverage killer too. SEA still not a hub. Bar, wake up, drink coffee, whatever it takes. Your idealism is grossly outgunned.

d.e.l.e.t.e.d

My thoughts for years.............. :(

FYI - "moot" actually means arguable rather than irrelevant or inapplicable.

That being said, I agree with you.