New PSA Pilot Pay Agreement
04-04-2019 | 06:30 AM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
I think you are confusing why things happened. The pay didn't have anything to do with PP flow rates. While we all moved up a little bit in flow, it did nothing to protect the rest of the pilot group, increase pay, increase qol etc. The only tangible effect was to move the PP's quicker, which I want to reiterate again, I am not ****ting on the PP's so please lets not get all worked up about it. The point is simply, that in MY opinion, we could have battled for more at that point.
I fully admit that I could be wrong about doing more than, I wasn't in the negotiations, however we seem to be losing a lot of battles around here and its getting old.
I fully admit that I could be wrong about doing more than, I wasn't in the negotiations, however we seem to be losing a lot of battles around here and its getting old.
04-04-2019 | 06:33 AM
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 4,174
Likes: 157
Anything else we should discuss?
04-04-2019 | 06:33 AM
#63
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
That the language was unclear in the ‘14 agreement that I, and not quite enough other pilots, voted against we can agree on. But, I knew what that language was going to yield during those gun-to-our-heads negotiations, and a grievance wasn’t going to change that (at least, I don’t believe and arbitrator would have agreed with our position). So, when people say they gave away the farm to increase the rate of flow for the protected pilots, I just don’t see it.
04-04-2019 | 06:34 AM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 4,174
Likes: 157
That the language was unclear in the ‘14 agreement that I, and not quite enough other pilots, voted against we can agree on. But, I knew what that language was going to yield during those gun-to-our-heads negotiations, and a grievance wasn’t going to change that (at least, I don’t believe and arbitrator would have agreed with our position). So, when people say they gave away the farm to increase the rate of flow for the protected pilots, I just don’t see it.
04-04-2019 | 06:35 AM
#65
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,073
Likes: 2
04-04-2019 | 06:36 AM
#66
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Well, they did eff us in ‘14 and now their ‘14 hires are flowing as compared to our ‘10 hires. Maybe for a new hire their time to flow is higher than ours, but let’s not forget that we had pilots vote no, then bolt over to PSA to undercut their former coworkers, who are now flowing through to AA faster. That is some grade a garbage.
04-04-2019 | 06:40 AM
#67
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
The increase served multiple purposes. The company was already used to 30/mo with the 824, so that number was a comfortable number. The increase served as a marketing tool for the company and recruitment, and by settling the grievance they saved an arbitration process. Also, that settlement was in conjunction with the agreements to make it easier to hire direct entry captains, which they also wanted (the agreement that also gave CA pay beginning at award date). So, we’re there items that both sides wanted? Yeah. Did we give away the farm? No...
04-04-2019 | 06:56 AM
#68
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 4,174
Likes: 157
The increase served multiple purposes. The company was already used to 30/mo with the 824, so that number was a comfortable number. The increase served as a marketing tool for the company and recruitment, and by settling the grievance they saved an arbitration process. Also, that settlement was in conjunction with the agreements to make it easier to hire direct entry captains, which they also wanted (the agreement that also gave CA pay beginning at award date). So, we’re there items that both sides wanted? Yeah. Did we give away the farm? No...
Would we have gotten it all, most likely no but hell if we dont fight for things we would never know. Who would have been hurt by turning down that agreement? The PP's? Ok so a little more time at Envoy, I get that. However it would have had negligible effects on the rest of the pilot group initially with the chance to greatly improve things for years to come.
Just one pilots opinion. I am really not trying to dog anyone, just feel we missed the opportunity to get more.
04-04-2019 | 07:19 AM
#69
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 2,510
Likes: 0
Look. The leadership is supposed to set the tone. The onus is on them.
If they (union) tell me to go to DFW Terminal B tomorrow to do an informational picket, I'll be there. If they want a letter writing campaign, then I'll write. Cmon. It's absolutely the union leadership's responsibility to organize. That is their job! Whipsawing is absolutely rediculous when we are under one union umbrella. The lessons should have been learned, and contingencies set to prevent a repeat of such management shenanigans. ALPA overall needs to stop this silo mentality within its sub-group and act in unity. I already let our union know how I feel, but they should have been on top of this.
If they (union) tell me to go to DFW Terminal B tomorrow to do an informational picket, I'll be there. If they want a letter writing campaign, then I'll write. Cmon. It's absolutely the union leadership's responsibility to organize. That is their job! Whipsawing is absolutely rediculous when we are under one union umbrella. The lessons should have been learned, and contingencies set to prevent a repeat of such management shenanigans. ALPA overall needs to stop this silo mentality within its sub-group and act in unity. I already let our union know how I feel, but they should have been on top of this.
04-04-2019 | 08:05 AM
#70
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
So, in short, they are scared, unable and unwilling to stand up for the pilot group as a whole. (protected group seems to be a different story)
So maybe the question needs to be how to replace the current Union Leadership ...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
