LOA19 - Page 6 - Airline Pilot Central Forums

#51

MergingTargets , 10-06-2023 12:40 PM

Line Holder

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluedriver

If SWA doesn't get a deal, I think the maffs have us at $356 12 year A320CA

So for those of us who aren't 1%ers... that's like... an extra snack box per trip?

#52

Forward lav , 10-06-2023 01:02 PM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by MergingTargets

So for those of us who aren't 1%ers... that's like... an extra snack box per trip?

Yea but the new #4 is awesome.

#53

Bluedriver , 10-06-2023 01:02 PM

The REAL Bluedriver

Quote:

Originally Posted by MergingTargets

So for those of us who aren't 1%ers... that's like... an extra snack box per trip?

~$16 per hour more than without the snap-up, so a couple of snack boxes.

#54

dontsurf , 10-06-2023 03:23 PM

Gets Weekends Off

I forget, are the a220 and e190 set at a percentage of the a320 rate in the snap-up scenario?

#55

Bgood , 10-06-2023 04:49 PM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desdi

You are speaking as if LOA19 is going to make VILs a permanent fixture….. it is not!

I didn’t mean for it to come off like that but I'm also glad it's not permanent. Reel it back in for another time the company wants it so we can ask for something else

#56

Bluedriver , 10-06-2023 05:07 PM

The REAL Bluedriver

Quote:

Originally Posted by dontsurf

I forget, are the a220 and e190 set at a percentage of the a320 rate in the snap-up scenario?

Yes... I think this is correct.

A220 CA 95.91%E190 CA 79.99%

#57

kangoose , 10-06-2023 06:57 PM

New Hire

Green Grid

I'm all for the 50 hour VILs, but not at the expense of the rest of the pilot group. We should take a page out of the Spirit book and require 80% of the reserve grids be green... at least in the first FCFS window. No reason to continue running "hot" for those that can't hold the VILs.

#58

Desdi , 10-06-2023 08:08 PM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bgood

I didn’t mean for it to come off like that but I'm also glad it's not permanent. Reel it back in for another time the company wants it so we can ask for something else

Absolutely, right on! I’ve had quite a bit of my faith restored in the NC by this LOA (at least by the info we have on it at the moment). It’s the first time they’ve had an ask by the company, sent it back because the carrot was not good enough, then drove a hard bargain and obtained solid gains in exchange for the flexibility the company was seeking! That’s the model I wish I had seen my seven yrs here and had yet to see it until now! BRAVO!

#59

Gone Flying , 10-06-2023 11:25 PM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluedriver

Profit sharing is definitely NOT ok now, but this was a big step in the right direction. The cliff was the single BIGGEST factor in us not getting checks during average/good financial performance years.

Next they need to increase the pool of money set aside. I believe right now it is 10% of profits (the trigger for higher withholdings is absurd), where 15% is more standard. But I haven't looked at all these new contracts at our peers, the average/standard for profit sharing pool set-aside could have improved.

Again, very big step in the right direction.

WRT profit sharing, all 3 legacies now use the same formula to determine the pool, 10% of first 2.5B in profits, 20% of anything over that threshold.

no clue how Alaska and southwest do it.

Congrats, sounds like a win for you guys.

#60

Blue Dude , 10-07-2023 04:54 AM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desdi

It's not up to the NC to give direction, or reject or accept negotiated terms. They've been doing their role all along. It's the MEC reps who you've apparently had issues with, not the NC.