RAH 190's Base and Pay Memo
06-05-2009, 10:27 AM
#111
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: Reclined
Posts: 2,168
Originally Posted by JoeyMeatballs
The F/O pay needs to come up at least $15/hr and CA's sadly are just under JetBlue, they both need to come up $$$$$$$$$,
You pick
06-05-2009, 10:32 AM
#112
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: Reclined
Posts: 2,168
Interesting how a Low Cost Carrier like JB can give decent pay raises during what has to be among one of the worst economic times in US history.... simply amazing isn't it... all our managements cry poor mouth, broke, no money for that.... yet a LCC just gave decent raises... wow, really makes ya wonder doesn't it? Not bad for a bunch of guys without a union.
What's your/our excuse ?
What's your/our excuse ?
06-06-2009, 10:22 AM
#113
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 15
I work for RAH. Why are people getting so fired up so soon? It seems that the majority of people that comment on this thread are either drunk or making completely uneducated assumptions about this situation and RAH pilots. If someone wrongfully calls me a scab in person, I will not take it lightly. It is not what I am and I would quit my job before crossing a picket line.
First of all, these things take time, especially when management will try to drag out negotiations as long as possible. It is my opinion (according some unofficial polls) that the majority of RAH pilots don't want the 190 and a vast majority has no interest in flying the 190 for the current rates (around 90%). Yet, some of you say that most of us are drooling over the sight of a shiny new 190. Very far from the truth. But again, if the 190 shows up on a person's pairing, they fly it or lose their job (unless it's technically considered struck work and I haven't met anyone yet that will put themselves in that position).
I understand that this has sparked a lot of outrage, but if you don't understand what is happening, then you shouldn't say anything at all on these boards. There's a process involving our union and ballots and only then can we, as RAH pilots, exercise our power to do something. If they decided to put 100 seats on the new planes, then we would have to vote on a pay rate before we would fly them. But since we have a rate for 94 seats, we have to fly them at our current rate until the new TA is ratified. I know it sucks, I don't think anyone here is proud of it, but it's not difficult to understand folks.
My heart goes out to the pilots, flight attendants, and anyone who may lose their job at Midwest. It seems like a great operation and I always try to be extra professional when representing Midwest. On the other hand, I wonder if RAH coming on property is only delaying the inevitable, since I have rarely seen a full flight. Mind you, this is based on my observations, but I can remember a few flights where there were only 8 people on board and 4 of those were deadheading crew members. Filling less than 50% of the seats seems to be the norm in my experience, except between MKE and ATL. Compare that with US Airways, which always seems to be fully loaded with passengers. Something isn't right and it doesn't seem sustainable (even with our ridiculous pay rate), in my humble opinion. Even if we do get these 190s, I don't have much faith that they'll stay with us very long. I say that with the utmost sincerity.
Lastly, I have only good things to say about most of my co-workers and I enjoy working with them. They're honest, hard working people with families, some are on their third or fourth airline, young, old, etc. Basically, they're just like you and trying to make it in this industry and most have ended up here due to the luck of the draw. So, try to have some empathy before posting something that, in all honesty, makes you look like the angry drunk dimwit.
First of all, these things take time, especially when management will try to drag out negotiations as long as possible. It is my opinion (according some unofficial polls) that the majority of RAH pilots don't want the 190 and a vast majority has no interest in flying the 190 for the current rates (around 90%). Yet, some of you say that most of us are drooling over the sight of a shiny new 190. Very far from the truth. But again, if the 190 shows up on a person's pairing, they fly it or lose their job (unless it's technically considered struck work and I haven't met anyone yet that will put themselves in that position).
I understand that this has sparked a lot of outrage, but if you don't understand what is happening, then you shouldn't say anything at all on these boards. There's a process involving our union and ballots and only then can we, as RAH pilots, exercise our power to do something. If they decided to put 100 seats on the new planes, then we would have to vote on a pay rate before we would fly them. But since we have a rate for 94 seats, we have to fly them at our current rate until the new TA is ratified. I know it sucks, I don't think anyone here is proud of it, but it's not difficult to understand folks.
My heart goes out to the pilots, flight attendants, and anyone who may lose their job at Midwest. It seems like a great operation and I always try to be extra professional when representing Midwest. On the other hand, I wonder if RAH coming on property is only delaying the inevitable, since I have rarely seen a full flight. Mind you, this is based on my observations, but I can remember a few flights where there were only 8 people on board and 4 of those were deadheading crew members. Filling less than 50% of the seats seems to be the norm in my experience, except between MKE and ATL. Compare that with US Airways, which always seems to be fully loaded with passengers. Something isn't right and it doesn't seem sustainable (even with our ridiculous pay rate), in my humble opinion. Even if we do get these 190s, I don't have much faith that they'll stay with us very long. I say that with the utmost sincerity.
Lastly, I have only good things to say about most of my co-workers and I enjoy working with them. They're honest, hard working people with families, some are on their third or fourth airline, young, old, etc. Basically, they're just like you and trying to make it in this industry and most have ended up here due to the luck of the draw. So, try to have some empathy before posting something that, in all honesty, makes you look like the angry drunk dimwit.
06-06-2009, 10:48 AM
#114
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: retired
Posts: 992
Originally Posted by The Far Sides
If someone wrongfully calls me a scab in person, I will not take it lightly. It is not what I am and I would quit my job before crossing a picket line.
My heart goes out to the pilots, flight attendants, and anyone who may lose their job at Midwest. It seems like a great operation and I always try to be extra professional when representing Midwest. On the other hand, I wonder if RAH coming on property is only delaying the inevitable, since I have rarely seen a full flight. Mind you, this is based on my observations, but I can remember a few flights where there were only 8 people on board and 4 of those were deadheading crew members. Filling less than 50% of the seats seems to be the norm in my experience, except between MKE and ATL. Compare that with US Airways, which always seems to be fully loaded with passengers. Something isn't right and it doesn't seem sustainable (even with our ridiculous pay rate), in my humble opinion. Even if we do get these 190s, I don't have much faith that they'll stay with us very long. I say that with the utmost sincerity.
My heart goes out to the pilots, flight attendants, and anyone who may lose their job at Midwest. It seems like a great operation and I always try to be extra professional when representing Midwest. On the other hand, I wonder if RAH coming on property is only delaying the inevitable, since I have rarely seen a full flight. Mind you, this is based on my observations, but I can remember a few flights where there were only 8 people on board and 4 of those were deadheading crew members. Filling less than 50% of the seats seems to be the norm in my experience, except between MKE and ATL. Compare that with US Airways, which always seems to be fully loaded with passengers. Something isn't right and it doesn't seem sustainable (even with our ridiculous pay rate), in my humble opinion. Even if we do get these 190s, I don't have much faith that they'll stay with us very long. I say that with the utmost sincerity.
What do you mean MAY lose their jobs? Seventy-five percent HAVE lost their jobs!
The reason your flights aren't full is that people are boooking around your crummy airline.The 717s are booked full everyday. The passengers know the difference between the real Midwest and the cheap imitation and what do you care anyway? Your leech of a company gets paid the same either full or empty so what do you care that your helping to destroy a service reputation that's been around for twenty-five years
06-06-2009, 11:21 AM
#116
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 253
Originally Posted by Dougdrvr
OK, if someone called you a parasite, would that be OK?
What do you mean MAY lose their jobs? Seventy-five percent HAVE lost their jobs!
The reason your flights aren't full is that people are boooking around your crummy airline.The 717s are booked full everyday. The passengers know the difference between the real Midwest and the cheap imitation and what do you care anyway? Your leech of a company gets paid the same either full or empty so what do you care that your helping to destroy a service reputation that's been around for twenty-five years
What do you mean MAY lose their jobs? Seventy-five percent HAVE lost their jobs!
The reason your flights aren't full is that people are boooking around your crummy airline.The 717s are booked full everyday. The passengers know the difference between the real Midwest and the cheap imitation and what do you care anyway? Your leech of a company gets paid the same either full or empty so what do you care that your helping to destroy a service reputation that's been around for twenty-five years
OK, what if someone called you a Douche?
Did you not read anything? It's one thing to have an opinion as to a company's business practices/tactics, but another to attack the employees, and as was mentioned previously, sound like a drunk dimwit. Grow up.
06-06-2009, 11:51 AM
#117
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: 747 FO
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by tpersuit
Your being ignorant to think the GoJet pilots will have a an increasingly harder time going anywhere as more and more pilots start filtering into those companies and deny them from being hired based on character.
06-06-2009, 12:04 PM
#118
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: retired
Posts: 992
Originally Posted by Fletch727
OK, what if someone called you a Douche?
Did you not read anything? It's one thing to have an opinion as to a company's business practices/tactics, but another to attack the employees, and as was mentioned previously, sound like a drunk dimwit. Grow up.
Did you not read anything? It's one thing to have an opinion as to a company's business practices/tactics, but another to attack the employees, and as was mentioned previously, sound like a drunk dimwit. Grow up.
06-06-2009, 12:37 PM
#119
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: 767-400
Posts: 797
Originally Posted by The Far Sides
First of all, these things take time, especially when management will try to drag out negotiations as long as possible. It is my opinion (according some unofficial polls) that the majority of RAH pilots don't want the 190 and a vast majority has no interest in flying the 190 for the current rates (around 90%). Yet, some of you say that most of us are drooling over the sight of a shiny new 190. Very far from the truth. But again, if the 190 shows up on a person's pairing, they fly it or lose their job (unless it's technically considered struck work and I haven't met anyone yet that will put themselves in that position). .
RIGHT!!! You guys have no back bone and have sold out to fly these planes! This is just like the GoJet thing... only differant names!
BTW. Here are the DAL 2nd and 12th year CA and FO rates on the E190 for 1/2010. (the rate increase 4% each Jan. plus pilot get and additional 11-14% of pay added to retirement accnt)
CA E190 2nd-$99 12th-$108
CA E195 2nd-$117 12th-$127
FO E190 2nd-$54 12th-$74
FO E195 2nd-$63 12th-$87
And IMHO DAL's rates are BAD if JetBlues new rates are factual...
Last edited by BigGuns; 06-06-2009 at 12:48 PM.
06-06-2009, 01:03 PM
#120
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 15
Originally Posted by BigGuns
So I expect to see those E190 only being flown by pilots that have been displaced into them, because no-one is going to bidd into the postion... Then I expect to see all those displaced pilots call in sick or drop the flying... Snice of course..."...the majority of RAH pilots don't want the 190 and a vast majority has no interest in flying the 190 for the current rates ..."
RIGHT!!! You guys have no back bone and have sold out to fly these planes! This is just like the GoJet thing... only differant names!
BTW. Here are the DAL 2nd and 12th year CA and FO rates on the E190 for 1/2010. (the rate increase 4% each Jan. plus pilot get and additional 11-14% of pay added to retirement accnt)
CA E190 2nd-$99 12th-$108
CA E195 2nd-$117 12th-$127
FO E190 2nd-$54 12th-$74
FO E195 2nd-$63 12th-$87
And IMHO DAL's rates are BAD if JetBlues new rates are factual...
RIGHT!!! You guys have no back bone and have sold out to fly these planes! This is just like the GoJet thing... only differant names!
BTW. Here are the DAL 2nd and 12th year CA and FO rates on the E190 for 1/2010. (the rate increase 4% each Jan. plus pilot get and additional 11-14% of pay added to retirement accnt)
CA E190 2nd-$99 12th-$108
CA E195 2nd-$117 12th-$127
FO E190 2nd-$54 12th-$74
FO E195 2nd-$63 12th-$87
And IMHO DAL's rates are BAD if JetBlues new rates are factual...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
