From ALPA web board---hold out for more pay?
06-10-2012, 05:14 PM
#31
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
If they promise me 99 hours per month (ALV+15) I'll bid reserve. That way, I'll get a month or two off due to the 1000 hours per year limitation, and I'll be rich. One other thing, a lot of FNWA pilots liked the 80+ hours and the time and a half that was associated with that over 80 hours per month. That would cause a manning change too, with everyone going for any open time to get that extra time and a half pay. They wouldn't need any reserves, just whiteslips. It would be a free for all, and it probably was up there in priority on the survey.
06-10-2012, 05:16 PM
#32
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by nwaf16dude
I don't doubt that you are right. I'm 500ish numbers senior to you, so the LOA is effecting me a little differently. I'm sure they will catch up to me eventually, but I could have grown a very nice beard between my last two days at work, counting short calls. Things will change, and I'm sure we'll get back to a point where most reserves are getting heavily used, but I'd much rather do it for 75-80 hours of pay vs. 70.
06-10-2012, 05:45 PM
#33
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
Yes seniority makes reserve mo Beatta. No doubt. Last month was brutal and this month looks to be shaping up the same way. Raw of 90 and two sc thus far. No complaints though because it all allowed in our current PWA.
06-10-2012, 06:07 PM
#34
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
Think how senior you might be as a 717B? You will never ever have to be a reserve again, and you will get to see those cities you really care about, like Greensboro and Dayton.
06-10-2012, 06:10 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: 7er
Posts: 1,673
I went from heck yes to heck no in 1 day. Hope more see the light.
06-10-2012, 06:20 PM
#36
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by johnso29
I think we will end up with 62 MD90s. Or is it 58? Either way, we will eventually park a total of 68 DC9s. So we will end up with fewer MD90s then DC9s. But the MD90s have always been DC9 replacements. The B717s were never slated as DC9 replacements. That's the way I've always understood it. The DC9s were originally planned to be gone by the end of this year. And it's one case where we are replacing lower paying aircraft with higher paying aircraft.
06-10-2012, 06:22 PM
#37
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
Sounds fun, no really but I would not vote just on what it does for me in the near term.
06-10-2012, 06:57 PM
#38
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
Bingo, the long term ramifications of this TA are a major reason for the way I will vote.
Bombardier is shutting the line down. We agree to these ratios we give up major leverage in any sort of transaction that involves airlines that have regional partners.
There are long term ramifications too. The concepts are good, but the language as a whole really marginalizes too much.
06-10-2012, 06:58 PM
#39
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by Delta1067
I went from heck yes to heck no in 1 day. Hope more see the light.
I want to know what changed your mind. It may be beneficial for all to know it as well.
06-10-2012, 06:59 PM
#40
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
I remember distinctly that the MD-90s were net negative for the fleet. I'm assuming that is no longer the case?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
