Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

You're a 4

Old 06-05-2012, 06:41 AM
  #11  
Gets Weekends Off
 
CVG767A's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Position: 767ER capt
Posts: 1,190
Default

Originally Posted by crewdawg52 View Post
If 5/10/5/5 was it, I'd be a fence sitter then. But since it's not, NO.
Really?!?

The difference on between your ask and the current offer on DOS would be $123/month, or a net of about $70/month. ($35 per paycheck)

The second year gap grows to a gross of about $329/month. I'll estimate a difference per paycheck of about $100.

I can't imagine that this amount of money could tip the scales.


(The above is based on 744 FO pay at 80 hours per month.)
CVG767A is offline  
Old 06-05-2012, 07:26 AM
  #12  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 758
Default

Originally Posted by CVG767A View Post
Really?!?

The difference on between your ask and the current offer on DOS would be $123/month, or a net of about $70/month. ($35 per paycheck)

The second year gap grows to a gross of about $329/month. I'll estimate a difference per paycheck of about $100.

I can't imagine that this amount of money could tip the scales.


(The above is based on 744 FO pay at 80 hours per month.)
That is about 27 percent compounded raise. An extra 10 percent overall could have made a difference. That would be an additional 1000 a month gross in my position.
DLpilot is offline  
Old 06-05-2012, 08:49 AM
  #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Free Bird's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 799
Default

Originally Posted by TOGA LK View Post
T, there won't be much of a next time after we have 325 EMB-170/175, CRJ-700 and MORE 90-seat CRJ-900 with long term lease agreements. I know quite a few pilots at other airlines and no one is proud of the fact we are trading tired 50-seaters for what will be the worst scope in the industry. Mark my word, should this TA pass it will embolden management teams all over to shift the line in the sand and the fallout will be THOUSANDS of 90-seat jets paying a quarter of what a fNWA pilot made under a BK contract flying a DC-9-30. As far as getting them next time, our only chance is now. The only thing this TA and the Moakster will represent for our profession is broke D-scale pilots operating mainline equipment at $80/hr left seat and $24/hr right seat.

Lastly, a certain type of economic event rears its head about every 7 years, I wouldn't bank on favorable conditions in three years. I am connecting the dots, just differently than you. As far as the TA as a whole, too many caveats for management, they will exploit them.
That's it. Great summary!
Free Bird is offline  
Old 06-05-2012, 09:01 AM
  #14  
veut gagner à la loterie
 
forgot to bid's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Default

4? Hell yeah count me as a yes vote.

If its a DCI fleet of 4 total airplanes.
forgot to bid is offline  
Old 06-05-2012, 09:16 AM
  #15  
Da Hudge
 
80ktsClamp's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Default

I'm fine with the 4/8/3/3 if the rest of the contract was as "robust" as stated.

255 jumbo RJs going to 325, RAH carveout, DPJ carveout, 4.5 ADG (wn gets 6), minimal vacation improvement (regionals typically get 30 more minutes per vacation day than us), and so on...
80ktsClamp is offline  
Old 06-05-2012, 09:24 AM
  #16  
Gets Weekends Off
 
finis72's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: 777 Sim Instructor
Posts: 745
Default

Originally Posted by TOGA LK View Post
T, there won't be much of a next time after we have 325 EMB-170/175, CRJ-700 and MORE 90-seat CRJ-900 with long term lease agreements. I know quite a few pilots at other airlines and no one is proud of the fact we are trading tired 50-seaters for what will be the worst scope in the industry. Mark my word, should this TA pass it will embolden management teams all over to shift the line in the sand and the fallout will be THOUSANDS of 90-seat jets paying a quarter of what a fNWA pilot made under a BK contract flying a DC-9-30. As far as getting them next time, our only chance is now. The only thing this TA and the Moakster will represent for our profession is broke D-scale pilots operating mainline equipment at $80/hr left seat and $24/hr right seat.

Lastly, a certain type of economic event rears its head about every 7 years, I wouldn't bank on favorable conditions in three years. I am connecting the dots, just differently than you. As far as the TA as a whole, too many caveats for management, they will exploit them.
I'm confused; what's this 90 seat airplane ? We have a limit at 76 seats so I don't get your post at all. We will have less RJ's and less RJ pilots with the TA. We gave up the 76 seat aircraft years ago, it is not and will never be a mainline aircraft because to bring it to mainline would be very costly. Probably require a pay cut from all mainline pilots to cover cost and I doubt you would ever get a majority to vote for that.
finis72 is offline  
Old 06-05-2012, 09:30 AM
  #17  
Da Hudge
 
80ktsClamp's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Default

Originally Posted by finis72 View Post
I'm confused; what's this 90 seat airplane ? We have a limit at 76 seats so I don't get your post at all. We will have less RJ's and less RJ pilots with the TA. We gave up the 76 seat aircraft years ago, it is not and will never be a mainline aircraft because to bring it to mainline would be very costly. Probably require a pay cut from all mainline pilots to cover cost and I doubt you would ever get a majority to vote for that.
It's not a 90 seat airplane if you want to use it the way DL wants to use it. In reality it's an 80-82 seat airplane.
80ktsClamp is offline  
Old 06-05-2012, 09:39 AM
  #18  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
dragon's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Dismayed
Posts: 1,593
Default

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp View Post
I'm fine with the 4/8/3/3 if the rest of the contract was as "robust" as stated.

255 jumbo RJs going to 325, RAH carveout, DPJ carveout, 4.5 ADG (wn gets 6), minimal vacation improvement (regionals typically get 30 more minutes per vacation day than us), and so on...
The premise of the original question was if the first number were greater, the other things would be easier to choke down.
dragon is offline  
Old 06-05-2012, 10:01 AM
  #19  
Da Hudge
 
80ktsClamp's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Default

Originally Posted by dragon View Post
The premise of the original question was if the first number were greater, the other things would be easier to choke down.
It would be, but that would have to be a seriously large number... more than DL would give up.
80ktsClamp is offline  
Old 06-05-2012, 10:07 AM
  #20  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Posts: 101
Default

Originally Posted by CVG767A View Post
Really?!?

The difference on between your ask and the current offer on DOS would be $123/month, or a net of about $70/month. ($35 per paycheck)

The second year gap grows to a gross of about $329/month. I'll estimate a difference per paycheck of about $100.

I can't imagine that this amount of money could tip the scales.


(The above is based on 744 FO pay at 80 hours per month.)
That's like driving 2 miles down the hwy to pay $3.37 per gallon of gas vice $3.40 per gallon of gas.
ReasonableMan is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices