I Love PSA
09-20-2013 | 07:25 AM
#2701
Guest
Posts: n/a
yeah.. ok. pass the TA and let me know how all that works out for you.. maybe thats what you need is a dose of reality.. I didnt read 'quicker upgrade' in that TA of yours.. have a section reference for me?
a 10% raise in healthcare costs isnt making less money? You're hoping you get 900's. Could be 700's, which are at your current rates.. = pay cut
Good Luck you Blue Streakers!
a 10% raise in healthcare costs isnt making less money? You're hoping you get 900's. Could be 700's, which are at your current rates.. = pay cut
Good Luck you Blue Streakers!
Section header in the TA states larger RJs so doubtful it's 700s.but even if it is, how is it a paycut? We are getting paid the same rates. 1+1=2
09-20-2013 | 07:29 AM
#2702
Guest
Posts: n/a
I just wanted to quote myself here seeing as most of you clearly didn't read my whole post....
This makes no sense. I'm not sure what FACT you are referring to but I am talking about the FACT that Airways blatantly said during these negotiations that mesa was next up if we turned down this TA. I am also talking about the FACT that the pilot groups at mesa or republic will not get a chance to vote on anything.
I quoted myself(from the post that you quoted but obviously didn't read) at the top of this post...just throwing that out there.....again
You are absolutely correct. This is something I considered while voting.
Yes, but they clearly aren't going well. Republic is iced currently I believe. At the end of the day it will most likely be a while before either of these carriers can "raise the bar." Also you can't tell me that Airways does not know, or consider that negotiations are ongoing at these places. They will get a fixed cost agreement to operate these acft, and management will use it as leverage during said negotiations.
Going to give you the obligatory, please read my ENTIRE post. I took the liberty of quoting myself at the top of this one for you.
That being said, this TA will not effect me negatively until 2021 when I hit year 12. If these acft are not growth and I remain an FO I will make just as much at year 4 pay(new cap) as I would at year 6 pay(old cap)due to an increase in our blended rate from larger acft. The insurance increases in my situation, while a consideration, is negligible.
For some(not me) a sticking point was that this TA would make PSA viable and, most likely guaranteed to stay around for the duration of their career due to operating larger acft. Staying a majority 50 seat carrier will limit our sustainability.
Not everyone is voting on the career progression portion of this TA because it simply doesn't make sense for them to go to mainline at age 55 or 60. It is important to them to actually have a place to work for 5 or 10 more years though.
This is a new one for me but is probably garbage IMO. Any benefit Airways gained from our lower cost would be negated by having a significantly more expensive carrier add 35 200s.
It's not a lie. It might turn out to not be true, but he isn't lying because the truth of the matter is that we don't know(something to consider while voting).
I agree with your other paragraph here. The last sentence though I do not. I mentioned the "hold the line" thing in my original post so I'll point you back to it. Also "holding the line" at a mainline carrier is a completely different ballgame than at the FFD level. You know why it is so I'm not going to elaborate. Apples to oranges.
This makes no sense. I'm not sure what FACT you are referring to but I am talking about the FACT that Airways blatantly said during these negotiations that mesa was next up if we turned down this TA. I am also talking about the FACT that the pilot groups at mesa or republic will not get a chance to vote on anything.
I quoted myself(from the post that you quoted but obviously didn't read) at the top of this post...just throwing that out there.....again
You are absolutely correct. This is something I considered while voting.
Yes, but they clearly aren't going well. Republic is iced currently I believe. At the end of the day it will most likely be a while before either of these carriers can "raise the bar." Also you can't tell me that Airways does not know, or consider that negotiations are ongoing at these places. They will get a fixed cost agreement to operate these acft, and management will use it as leverage during said negotiations.
Going to give you the obligatory, please read my ENTIRE post. I took the liberty of quoting myself at the top of this one for you.
That being said, this TA will not effect me negatively until 2021 when I hit year 12. If these acft are not growth and I remain an FO I will make just as much at year 4 pay(new cap) as I would at year 6 pay(old cap)due to an increase in our blended rate from larger acft. The insurance increases in my situation, while a consideration, is negligible.
For some(not me) a sticking point was that this TA would make PSA viable and, most likely guaranteed to stay around for the duration of their career due to operating larger acft. Staying a majority 50 seat carrier will limit our sustainability.
Not everyone is voting on the career progression portion of this TA because it simply doesn't make sense for them to go to mainline at age 55 or 60. It is important to them to actually have a place to work for 5 or 10 more years though.
This is a new one for me but is probably garbage IMO. Any benefit Airways gained from our lower cost would be negated by having a significantly more expensive carrier add 35 200s.
It's not a lie. It might turn out to not be true, but he isn't lying because the truth of the matter is that we don't know(something to consider while voting).
I agree with your other paragraph here. The last sentence though I do not. I mentioned the "hold the line" thing in my original post so I'll point you back to it. Also "holding the line" at a mainline carrier is a completely different ballgame than at the FFD level. You know why it is so I'm not going to elaborate. Apples to oranges.
09-20-2013 | 08:11 AM
#2703
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
It's additional airplanes = quicker upgrade. All the conspiracies of replacing 200s is simply not true before the leases are up.
Section header in the TA states larger RJs so doubtful it's 700s.but even if it is, how is it a paycut? We are getting paid the same rates. 1+1=2
Section header in the TA states larger RJs so doubtful it's 700s.but even if it is, how is it a paycut? We are getting paid the same rates. 1+1=2
09-20-2013 | 08:25 AM
#2704
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
From: ANG
09-20-2013 | 09:05 AM
#2705
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 503
Likes: 0
It's additional airplanes = quicker upgrade. All the conspiracies of replacing 200s is simply not true before the leases are up.
Section header in the TA states larger RJs so doubtful it's 700s.but even if it is, how is it a paycut? We are getting paid the same rates. 1+1=2
Section header in the TA states larger RJs so doubtful it's 700s.but even if it is, how is it a paycut? We are getting paid the same rates. 1+1=2
Have you seen the order for the aircraft? From a business point, it is cheaper to trade them in on 900, i.e. DAL purchase, instead of paying of high mtc costs.
Pay cuts if you having to pay more for healthcare and we all know that is going up.
09-20-2013 | 09:28 AM
#2706
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
It's additional airplanes = quicker upgrade. All the conspiracies of replacing 200s is simply not true before the leases are up.
Section header in the TA states larger RJs so doubtful it's 700s.but even if it is, how is it a paycut? We are getting paid the same rates. 1+1=2
Section header in the TA states larger RJs so doubtful it's 700s.but even if it is, how is it a paycut? We are getting paid the same rates. 1+1=2
Who says that US Airways won't work out a trade in deal on the 200s for 900s?
If it is 100% certain that US Airways intends to keep the 200s then they can put that in the contractual language. Anything short of that simply leaves them a very easy out later on.
09-20-2013 | 09:47 AM
#2707
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Do you have any sort of common sense? Mesa and Republic can barely staff the airplanes they currently have. Your selfish and irrational responses to why you should vote yes astound me. It is disappointing to see someone with such a high skill set sell themselves short and bring their peers down in the process.
09-20-2013 | 09:56 AM
#2708
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,214
Likes: 0
From: Seat 0B
Do you have any sort of common sense? Mesa and Republic can barely staff the airplanes they currently have. Your selfish and irrational responses to why you should vote yes astound me. It is disappointing to see someone with such a high skill set sell themselves short and bring their peers down in the process.
09-20-2013 | 10:00 AM
#2709
Banned
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Likes: 0
It's additional airplanes = quicker upgrade. All the conspiracies of replacing 200s is simply not true before the leases are up.
Section header in the TA states larger RJs so doubtful it's 700s.but even if it is, how is it a paycut? We are getting paid the same rates. 1+1=2
Section header in the TA states larger RJs so doubtful it's 700s.but even if it is, how is it a paycut? We are getting paid the same rates. 1+1=2
- It's only ONE additional plane guaranteed, is it not ?
- A "promise" of mainline interview only (no flow) and if you're turned down for any reason (perhaps they need you at PSA more ?), your pay is frozen, is it not ?
- Your healthcare costs will skyrocket many times over and above your feeble pay rates that are reset to lower longevity and frozen if your ejection seat to US Airways malfunctions.
Just a few tidbits there. If you're gullible enough to believe the bedtime fairy tale you're being read, I guess you're self-centered enough to rationalize throwing everyone else under the bus for a long-shot chance to benefit at the expense of others.
To those that rationalize this garbage by thinking, "oh well, if we don't do this, they'll just go elsewhere", that may be true, but A. they'll have to get an already cheaper outfit to do it and B. even if they can, that outfit cannot get enough flying to make this strategy successful as they'll still have to spread flying among several carriers for strike protection purposes. The more regionals (especially CORE regionals) that reject this strategy, the more likely it is to fail. Sadly, there will be those who are cluelessly unslavageable like PM90, but the key is to get the majority to SEE the strategy and DEFEAT the strategy instead of rationalizing capitualtion as acceptable, especially if there is an outside chance at self-benefit.
PM90 has already spun-in and his wreckage is smoking on managements lawn, so time to move on and try to shepard still flying aircraft back to the correct home base.
09-20-2013 | 10:10 AM
#2710
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
