PSA info
04-08-2016, 02:22 PM
#2091
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2015
Posts: 857
Originally Posted by Crjreg007
So what you're telling me is AWAC offered new hires more money by the way of first year pay increases and not the rest of you? Maybe because paying you guys more doesn't make sense because you're not leaving for other regionals? My god sounds like your airline did exactly what I'm saying ours is doing. But you guys waited what 5 years for that offer? Did you use all of your leverage? I though companies understood you had to make the contract better for all pilots? Also I don't feel stupid about your 1.5% raise because your 5 years as an FO still made less than our CAs that upgraded in under two years will make in 5 years. Much less at that. Your 1.5% doesn't fill classes but our quick upgrade sure did.
Just remember that our leverage was and is weaker because others choose and still chose to fly for less and not work to improve their own position... Also remember that you took just concessions and now the company pays bonuses to only new hires. You are paying those new hires our of your own pocket. Enjoy!
04-08-2016, 02:32 PM
#2092
Living the Dream
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: Another RJ CA
Posts: 90
PSA has 106 airplanes and 1070 pilots on the seniority list. Total scheduled 900 deliveries equals 115 aircraft end of 2016 requiring about 1150 pilots, resulting in a net gain of 80 pilots over 8 months or 10 pilots per month.
Additional attrition will need to be replaced. Early summer AA classes will be all furlough recall and not required to take any PSA flows. Assuming AA starts OTS classes in August and that adds 5/mo Aug-Dec for a total of 25 pilots. Attrition outside the flow is a guestimate but I’ll guess we continue with the previous year’s monthly average of 5 pilots per month.
End result 2016 of 25 more pilots leaving for flow to AA, 40 more leaving for other carriers, and we have a total hiring requirement of 145 pilots by the end of 2016 or 17 per month. If the $10000 bonus for PSA new hires (plus $5000 for previous 121 pilots) can create enough hiring for 17/month we will not have any leverage to force contractual improvements. If we cannot hire enough we may see contractual gains or management may decide to delay 900 deliveries and/or park 200s.
Additional attrition will need to be replaced. Early summer AA classes will be all furlough recall and not required to take any PSA flows. Assuming AA starts OTS classes in August and that adds 5/mo Aug-Dec for a total of 25 pilots. Attrition outside the flow is a guestimate but I’ll guess we continue with the previous year’s monthly average of 5 pilots per month.
End result 2016 of 25 more pilots leaving for flow to AA, 40 more leaving for other carriers, and we have a total hiring requirement of 145 pilots by the end of 2016 or 17 per month. If the $10000 bonus for PSA new hires (plus $5000 for previous 121 pilots) can create enough hiring for 17/month we will not have any leverage to force contractual improvements. If we cannot hire enough we may see contractual gains or management may decide to delay 900 deliveries and/or park 200s.
04-08-2016, 02:33 PM
#2093
Living the Dream
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: Another RJ CA
Posts: 90
Other factors can affect my calculation. FOs leaving for other regionals, greater than historic attrition to other carriers, deferral or replacement of 900s for 200s. All of which management should have contemplated and has a plan prepared for.
AAG has said they want all wholly owned carriers to be equal. They want a new hire to choose one WO over the other only because of preferred bases. Right now PDT is hiring enough to replace attrition and the small growth planned. Envoy has a surplus of pilots and can easily continue hiring enough to replace their small attrition and anticipated shrinking fleet. AAG will not increase the industry’s worst pay at their WO until they absolutely have no other choice. PSA has little leverage for things to improve in the short term.
PSA’s fast career progression is over. Pay rates are lowest in the industry and will not improve anytime soon. Only 1 base is easily commutable and new hire schedules will have low QOL for a long time. Many FOs are realizing this now and leaving for other carriers
AAG has said they want all wholly owned carriers to be equal. They want a new hire to choose one WO over the other only because of preferred bases. Right now PDT is hiring enough to replace attrition and the small growth planned. Envoy has a surplus of pilots and can easily continue hiring enough to replace their small attrition and anticipated shrinking fleet. AAG will not increase the industry’s worst pay at their WO until they absolutely have no other choice. PSA has little leverage for things to improve in the short term.
PSA’s fast career progression is over. Pay rates are lowest in the industry and will not improve anytime soon. Only 1 base is easily commutable and new hire schedules will have low QOL for a long time. Many FOs are realizing this now and leaving for other carriers
04-08-2016, 02:34 PM
#2094
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2016
Posts: 31
Originally Posted by sweetholyjesus
You're not making much sense. A key difference here is that you guys are at (or near) the bottom, in terms of pay and contract. We were not. Another key difference is our company went through our union, as it should have. We said no because paying new hires more while making everyone take concessions wasn't in our best interests. So, the negotiations continue...Your company went around your Union for a reason, and that certainly doesn't benefit you.
Just remember that our leverage was and is weaker because others choose and still chose to fly for less and not work to improve their own position... Also remember that you took just concessions and now the company pays bonuses to only new hires. You are paying those new hires our of your own pocket. Enjoy!
Just remember that our leverage was and is weaker because others choose and still chose to fly for less and not work to improve their own position... Also remember that you took just concessions and now the company pays bonuses to only new hires. You are paying those new hires our of your own pocket. Enjoy!
04-08-2016, 02:44 PM
#2095
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2015
Posts: 857
Originally Posted by Crjreg007
How did our company go around our union? They offered a deal that included current pilots and we said no. The bonuses are don't require any input from the union. It's like you're saying the company can keep offering new hires more money without consulting the pilot group? PSA took concessions and money going to only new hires you say? We turned down retention bonuses to current FOs and the company still proceeded to pay new hires bonuses? You do realize that this is my whole argument? That the company can, is and will do this. Did you confuse yourself enough that you're agreeing with me now?
04-08-2016, 02:45 PM
#2096
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Posts: 469
Originally Posted by FirstClass
1.) Alpa = Losers
2.) Local ALPA leaders = weak
3.) You do NOT have to accept. You CANNOT be disciplined for following the rules they agreed to in good faith
If the few of you so called men cannot have the self respect to do what is right, you do not deserve to wear the uniform. Further, mainline pilots won't respect you in spite of the flow, those that came before you didn't put up with this kind of bs.
Chairman TR must step down immediately. Hey TR, when did standing up for yourself become politically incorrect?
2.) Local ALPA leaders = weak
3.) You do NOT have to accept. You CANNOT be disciplined for following the rules they agreed to in good faith
If the few of you so called men cannot have the self respect to do what is right, you do not deserve to wear the uniform. Further, mainline pilots won't respect you in spite of the flow, those that came before you didn't put up with this kind of bs.
Chairman TR must step down immediately. Hey TR, when did standing up for yourself become politically incorrect?
04-08-2016, 03:09 PM
#2099
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2016
Posts: 417
Originally Posted by Crjreg007
The company needed DECs because we grew so quick that we were in need of CAs. How would have increase pay to current pilots, which is what our whole argument is about, made it so we wouldn't have needed DECs? Does pay help new people get 1000 hours quicker? You say a good contract would have insured good movement. Think about what you're saying. PSA didn't have good movement? We had so much movement we had to hire DECs...
I like how in your early post you say any new hire that does any amount of research will see that PSAs contract is bad and then just now you say you didn't do your homework? You say I think new hires are stupid for going for a bonus and not a better contract? Did you not join PSA for as a DEC, which is a bonus for only new hires, with a bad contract? Are you the stupid new hires you speak of? Never once have I defended our contract. You would know that if you had read what I've posted but seeing as how you didn't read our contract I can't expect that can I. For the last time my argument is that management will not pay people like you more because they don't have to. I do not think our contract is good. Doesn't change the fact that pilots on property are willing to fly under it and not go to other airlines. We even have people from other airlines coming here, cough you cough. It makes poor business to pay our pilots more and AA won't do it is my only argument. Not that our contract is good or that the company is great.
I like how in your early post you say any new hire that does any amount of research will see that PSAs contract is bad and then just now you say you didn't do your homework? You say I think new hires are stupid for going for a bonus and not a better contract? Did you not join PSA for as a DEC, which is a bonus for only new hires, with a bad contract? Are you the stupid new hires you speak of? Never once have I defended our contract. You would know that if you had read what I've posted but seeing as how you didn't read our contract I can't expect that can I. For the last time my argument is that management will not pay people like you more because they don't have to. I do not think our contract is good. Doesn't change the fact that pilots on property are willing to fly under it and not go to other airlines. We even have people from other airlines coming here, cough you cough. It makes poor business to pay our pilots more and AA won't do it is my only argument. Not that our contract is good or that the company is great.
At the end of the day I'm just here to get some PIC, after I get what I feel is enough I will go somewhere else that has a better contract and an easier commute. Hopefully that will be a legacy, if not I'll happily go to an LCC and get a new type and wait there. In either case I'm certainly not sitting around at PSA waiting for a 10 year flow under this current contract. Maybe if PSA wants to pay a little more and make the contract a little better I'll consider staying, but for now I'm not staying a day past what I consider necessary. So hey maybe you will upgrade someday, if the flow keeps up and more airplanes aren't deffered
04-08-2016, 03:19 PM
#2100
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2016
Posts: 417
Originally Posted by 272922
Thank you for once again gracing us with your comprehensive knowledge of labor law. We're all the richer for it.
“A flight assignment given to a ready reserve pilot will depart within the ready reserve period.”
This is not an ambiguous sentence, it is black and white. It does not have a caveat that states "unless the chief pilot orders it"
While this particular issue may not affect most of you, consider the precedent it is setting. How many other provisions of the contract can be over ridden by the chief pilots order? What is the point of having a legal binding contract if it can just be rendered null and void by a chief pilot?
Laws are ofter determined by precedent and this is a very dangerous one
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
JetJock16
Regional
63
04-08-2016 05:05 PM
