|
[QUOTE=ANGRYwhiteguy;453742] Can you imagine if the CAL pilots started flying 170-190? Granted the pay wouldn't be super. QUOTE]
The pay would be "small narrow" pay, same as the 737-300/500/700. NO LESS! I'd fly it for that. |
Originally Posted by ANGRYwhiteguy
(Post 453888)
to whomever said that 20K a year is too much. That's 1st year FO pay at a company that has invested over 30K into training most CFI's that can barely fly to begin with. So it's pretty much a gamble as to if they are gonna make it. Would you rather pay to fly the first year, like we used to have to?
|
$23,400 2nd year. $24,300 3rd year. I cant believe someone actually PAYS me to fly!!!:confused:
|
Originally Posted by ANGRYwhiteguy
(Post 453742)
In my opinion, the "regional" airlines have gotten fat. The pay is too high and the contracts are just not working in this fuel environment.
|
Originally Posted by ANGRYwhiteguy
(Post 453888)
to whomever said that 20K a year is too much. That's 1st year FO pay at a company that has invested over 30K into training most CFI's that can barely fly to begin with. So it's pretty much a gamble as to if they are gonna make it. Would you rather pay to fly the first year, like we used to have to?
|
I'd also like to know what other industry lowers their pay by thousands and justifies it as "recouping training expenses".
ANGRY, I bet management loves you. |
Cost of flight training: $50,000-$100,000
Cost of College degree: $50,000-$100,000 Years of experience as: instructor, cargo, charter, corporate, regional pilot: $priceless. First year pay as professional pilot at regional or major: a joke. All pilots should fight for better pay for all pilots whatever the airline or seniority. First year pay needs to go up everywhere! |
I hope CAL can be the last major ALPA union that doesn't cave-in on scope.
It looks like Delta just prostrated themselves to Anderson on the new contract. By my count they'll have over 110 70 and 90 seat airliners flown by their commuter affiliates. |
If we didn't demand to be paid by the size of the jet, and were instead paid by the years of service, "scope" would far less of an issue--We wouldn't care what size planes the company bought.
Out-sourcing the flying would be much harder to justify, too. Once again, we do this to ourselves... |
Originally Posted by CALPilotToo
(Post 451357)
None of this is true. Had nothing to do with 20, 30, 40, 50,70, 90, or 285 seaters. BS flag big guy.
The LOA (Joint Venture Flying) dealt specifically with revenue/profit sharing with a domestic carrier on international routes. Currently CAL can do about 80% of what they want to do in this arena with foreign carriers. i.e. Lufthansa, AirCanada. (STAR Alliance) Furthermore, the LOA provided language that protected CAL pilot's flying, equipment and jobs. This provision would actually be an enhancement to the Scope section of the CBA. In return the company was willing to carry the furloughs and provide "No Furlough" protection for everyone currently on property. Also, return of the crew rest seat to Business First and agreement that the IRO's would start working both ways on any pairings that required an IRO. Furthermore, the sunset date on the current profit sharing provisions would be extended one year. There is also is a provision for a 2% pay raise when two triggers are met. (Remember, all of this would be outside of the normal Section 6 negotiations.) The company was willing to pay a premium for what they wanted and that included carrying those projected to be furloughed per the current business plan. THe LOA was supported and recommended by all the MEC Officers including the EVP, Negotiating Committee, Merger Committee, Alliance Oversight, ALPA National E&FA, Negotiating Counsel and SCOPE Counsel. This is a very rough synopsis of the LOA and provisions. The MEC decided to ignore the recommendations and voted 7-2 against the LOA. -SLAM55 |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:15 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands