This get-in-get-out mentality has done substantial damage to this industry. "Let's all take lower pay now (that others will get stuck with later) so we can get shiny planes and upgrades now..". And if you think subpar wages are OK because you might flow in 15 years, AND you should pay pilots less because "they'll just jump to United or Delta anyway", well I just don't know what else there is to say...

Also, remember that strategic business planning goes beyond just 1 or 2 years. As a WO pilot you are not just up against PSA, you are all up against AAG. They aren't dumb..

 

Once again you're making it sound like we're getting lower pay. We're getting what we agreed to. Let's talk strategic business. Explain to me how paying us more when the people asking for raises are not leaving is smart business? How is paying a CA who is one year from flowing $20,000 strategic business? I understand we're not up against just PSA but all of AA. You're the one that doesn't seem to understand that. Let's say PSA can't staff. How many other places fly for the American Eagle brand that can take our flying? Until no one can cover PSAs flying we have no leverage all we have is routes other airlines will happily take. Also any thing given to PSA must be given to Envoy and Piedmond which makes those bonuses a lot more expensive. You're right about one thing and that is AAG isn't dumb which is why they won't give pay raises to people already doing a job for a lower price. Until our captains and senior FOs are willing to walk unless a better contract is put in place AAG still has the leverage.

 

I'm literally laughing. You're making all of my points for me.

As far as giving bonuses to people leaving, it would make sense and bring more pilots if the wages were increased. Bonuses are a band-aid, and not agreed upon between the company/union. Now why on earth would the company not want to go through the union ask yourself that...

Like I said before, PSA/AAG are doing that they feel is necessary to make money, and I don't blame them for that. I just think that pilots (who are all being hurt by these practices) are silly to agree with and defend them. Why would any group voluntarily support a practice that weakens their position???

 

Chief Pilot just told me they will not be flowing five a month starting this summer (June) as well as upgrades are not gonna happen probably till later this summer. This all due to staffing.

 

Do you think raised wages across the board will bring any more pilots in than giving those new hires bigger bonuses. Will everyone getting a $10 an hour raise bring in more new hires than say giving new hires $30K in bonuses? Now ask yourself which one is cheaper for the company and that's the one they will do. If they need new hires they will do whatever is cheapest to get them in the door and unfortunately that is bonuses. Stop thinking about what is morally right because AAG and PSA are a businesses who want to make money. They could care less about their pilots and have proven it time and time again. Don't mistake my argument with me thinking we should get paid as little as we do. My argument is that we won't get paid more because it is of no benefit to the company. You believe if we hender hiring it will get us more pay where as I believe it won't because it isn't beneficial to the company. I believe that the pilot group trying to encourage slowing the hiring will only result in stagnation but no more money for current hires just new hires. We both want better for our pilots I just believe that making QOL on junior pilots worse in hopes we get money that the company has no desire to give us is nieve. Deal with what we have now and grow the company. Once were understaffed for 150 airplanes and they are on property we have leverage. If PSA decides tomorrow to not get any more planes or park 200s as 900s come online we are more than staffed and have no leverage. Remember 2 900s can carry just as many passengers as 3 200s requiring 2 less pilots. This place can go from border lined staffed to overstaffed without losing any passenger lift by parking 200s.

 

It's spelled naive. Grammar nazi-ing aside..

I still just can't get a handle on why you support something that helps the company, but shafts all your pilots? Of course the company is going to take the cheapest road, they are a business. But you will never have leverage with your way of thinking. To put it more simply, you lack balls. You say the company doesn't care about its pilots, yet you support their anti-pilot practices. Simple reasoning would tell me that you also could care less about your pilots. Why do you care so much about growing the company? Are you management? Don't lie..

You think keeping money away from current pilots will increase hiring?? Doesn't sound like many people are recommending PSA to their buddies right now. Also I imagine all those people who aren't buying into this bonus realize that when year 2 comes around they will be stuck with all the other underpaid, "non-special" pilots who don't deserve bonuses or increased wages.......

 

I'm assuming he is referring to the purported 3 months of recalls that AA has planned. I'm pretty sure our 5 for May are already in the pipeline so to speak. The way the contract language is written is that if AA is running a class that includes OTS hires (read: not recalls or furloughs) then they either have to take 5 or 0 PSA pilots. If they elect to take 0, then they can only defer those 5 who would of gone to the end of the calendar year.

 

I'm not management I'm just looking at our situation in reality not what may be. What shafts our pilots more no money and no growth or just no extra money? Seems like you're the one shafting the pilots. You say I have no balls I say you have no brains. A difference of opinion I guess. You keep saying I want to keep money away from our pilots. What money? Ask Envoy about those contract gains they held out for. In your mind this money were getting is already on the table and I'm telling people to leave it when nothing is being offer to our pilots and what was offered was turned down. Read through the town hall meeting in CLT and listen to the MEC call we just had. Every thing said in both supports my theory. Dion directly said there was no intention of paying captains more because it's bad business. You say people arnt buying into the bonuses so maybe money doesn't bring people in as much as you think. Endeavor is doing good hiring with money but PSA did much better when all we were offering was movement. Any one looking at not spending a life time at a regional knows the fast track to the left seat is better for their career.

 

A difference of opinion indeed. The simple difference between you and I is that I believe that if the company is to benefit financially from the pilots, the pilots must also benefit financially from the company. "Movement" is not a permanent tangible benefit, as you are all seeing now...Something as intangible and temporary as "movement" should not be paid for permanently (contractually) in the form of pay cuts..I hope you can grasp this because this is important. Now the movement is slowing but you still have the same crappy pay. Company is still benefiting but you are not. Who has won??

Endeavor pays ALL their pilots with tangible money, AND they are adding planes. PSA gets more planes for now, but seems to have unhappy pilots who don't get paid. You think movement is more important than getting paid. That's poor thinking. If people were getting paid, there would be more movement (more hiring)....Pilots get paid, company makes money. In THAT scenario, everybody wins.

Also FWIW I know dozens of good pilots with thousands of TPIC who haven't been called. Running to the lowest paying left seat for that 1000 TPIC isn't always the best choice. Otherwise all those pilots that upgraded over there would be at United or Delta by now, not waiting 15 years to maybe flow to AA...

EDIT: I don't think anyone in the PSA thread wants me to ask Envoy pilots how they feel about the contracts gains they were holding out for

 

[QUOTE=sweetholyjesus;2105406]A difference of opinion indeed. The simple difference between you and I is that I believe that if the company is to benefit financially from the pilots, the pilots must also benefit financially from the company. "Movement" is not a permanent tangible benefit, as you are all seeing now...Something as intangible and temporary as "movement" should not be paid for permanently (contractually) in the form of pay cuts..I hope you can grasp this because this is important. Now the movement is slowing but you still have the same crappy pay. Company is still benefiting but you are not. Who has won??

Endeavor pays ALL their pilots with tangible money, AND they are adding planes. PSA gets more planes for now, but seems to have unhappy pilots who don't get paid. You think movement is more important than getting paid. That's poor thinking. If people were getting paid, there would be more movement (more hiring)....Pilots get paid, company makes money. In THAT scenario, everybody wins.

Also FWIW I know dozens of good pilots with thousands of TPIC who haven't been called. Running to the lowest paying left seat for that 1000 TPIC isn't always the best choice. Otherwise all those pilots that upgraded over there would be at United or Delta by now, not waiting 15 years to maybe flow to AA...

EDIT: I don't think anyone in the PSA thread wants me to ask Envoy pilots how they feel about the contracts gains they were holding out for [/QUOTE

We both agree the company has won because PSA took pay cuts for growth but now the pilots want to take away that growth for pay raises they won't get. They got growth because of they are cheap. Giving them planes and raising their pay defeats the purpose of giving them the planes in the company eyes. I don't think movement is more important than getting paid but they are directly related. Quick upgrade directly equals more pay. It would be nice in a perfect world if pilots and company both made money but in PSAs current situation the company can make more money by not paying us. We all would love to be paid more but that's not on the cards currently for PSA. Looking through your posts it doesn't seem you even work for PSA so I don't think you truly understand the situation here. It looks like you work for Air Wisconsin so to me it seems us losing flying because of staff may directly benefit you it I'm not wrong. Air Wisconsin is a great group of pilots that does good work but have a very uncertain future because AA goes with cheaper regionals. You're right no one probably does want to ask Envoy guys about holding out for a better contract. Another good group of pilots that got hosed because of some one cheaper. PSA is about to be that hosed airline and they are already poorly paid with a bad flow. But go ahead PSA pilots stand up for better pay after selling yourself short for that growth. I'm sure the other AA carriers will feel real bad for us as they get our flying.