Republic First Officer's E190 Pay
09-24-2009, 10:17 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: Delta
Posts: 343
Originally Posted by mccube5
not sure the union reps agreed to anything. the fact that they proposed it in the first place it what brings their thought process into question.
09-24-2009, 10:22 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,923
Originally Posted by JetFlyer06
Wow- a new low. Top tier FO pay is less than 1st year at JB. I can't believe they signed this piece of garbage.
Delta Republic
1. $52 $64
2. $72 $68
3. $84 $73
4. $86 $75
5. $88 $77
6. $90 $80
7. $93 $82
Keep in mind the Delta scale gets a 4 percent raise every January 1 for the next 3 years while the Republic scale will never increase until a new contract is signed. Granted, this is a major vs. a regional (if you call it that these days), but both aircraft are still 100 seaters.
09-24-2009, 10:29 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: E-170
Posts: 842
this isn't a new pay rate for the 190's. this is a longevity increase based off of the 2003 contract so that the FO's will get a pay increase after they hit 4 years. this is the same blended rate that was created before 170's and 190's even existed. The union is doing this because for once this company will have more than 4 year FO's where before the average upgrade was two to three years. obviously we would like more but this is an extension of our pay rates not a new contract.
09-24-2009, 10:30 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: CRJ-200 First Officer
Posts: 262
Originally Posted by mccube5
first of all this is simply a proposed LOA. it has been sent to mgmt and is in their hands. as ugly as that looks i still cant imagine this mgmt team agreeing to anything that could be seen as throwing the pilots a bone.
second, the union mentioned nothing of their intentions to make this proposal to anyone in the pilot group. heck they didnt even mention it to the FO union reps who this would actually be affecting.
finally, while these are atrocious, the bottom line is this would be a small gain. no matter how terrible those rates are it beats the heck out of hitting year 4 and not seeing a penny more til the next TA. a couple bucks more in the our pockets is better than it being in theirs.
second, the union mentioned nothing of their intentions to make this proposal to anyone in the pilot group. heck they didnt even mention it to the FO union reps who this would actually be affecting.
finally, while these are atrocious, the bottom line is this would be a small gain. no matter how terrible those rates are it beats the heck out of hitting year 4 and not seeing a penny more til the next TA. a couple bucks more in the our pockets is better than it being in theirs.
Does this "small gain" even keep up with inflation?
09-24-2009, 10:33 AM
#25
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by Killer51883
this isn't a new pay rate for the 190's. this is a longevity increase based off of the 2003 contract so that the FO's will get a pay increase after they hit 4 years. this is the same blended rate that was created before 170's and 190's even existed. The union is doing this because for once this company will have more than 4 year FO's where before the average upgrade was two to three years. obviously we would like more but this is an extension of our pay rates not a new contract.
Your Reps continue to fall right into Bedford's hands. Ugh.
09-24-2009, 10:43 AM
#26
The NeverEnding Story
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,518
I dunno how many times it has to be said in order for it to sink into the skulls of those predisposed against RAH:
THESE ARE NOT NEW PAYRATES
This is a longevity increase for FOs above 4 years, where no rates previously existed. Nothing more, nothing less. The merits of the RAH EXCO, offering such an LOA while deep in contract negotiations and without speaking with their own FO reps, is however worthy of debate.
The submitter made a purposefully misleading headline in order to raise everyone's ire - congrats on the successful flamebait. You got damn near everybody on APC to bite
THESE ARE NOT NEW PAYRATES
This is a longevity increase for FOs above 4 years, where no rates previously existed. Nothing more, nothing less. The merits of the RAH EXCO, offering such an LOA while deep in contract negotiations and without speaking with their own FO reps, is however worthy of debate.
The submitter made a purposefully misleading headline in order to raise everyone's ire - congrats on the successful flamebait. You got damn near everybody on APC to bite
09-24-2009, 10:50 AM
#27
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Posts: 40
This should have been an internal debate within Rah. It saddens me that it reached a public board.
09-24-2009, 01:25 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,097
HEY INTERNET WARRIORS...PLEASE PAY ATTENTION.
THESE ARE NOT NEW CONTRACT PAYRATES! This is a middle of contract negotiations to extend the current payscale out longer. Try to understand before you all make stupid comments. We're still in contract negotiations. Amazing.
THESE ARE NOT NEW CONTRACT PAYRATES! This is a middle of contract negotiations to extend the current payscale out longer. Try to understand before you all make stupid comments. We're still in contract negotiations. Amazing.
09-24-2009, 01:55 PM
#29
*********
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,068
Originally Posted by oasis04
This should have been an internal debate within Rah. It saddens me that it reached a public board.
I'm an ALPA member, I've felt that way for almost 5 years now. Better yet, I now do union work, and I don't feel any differently. It's like getting a front row seat to the same ****ty movie I've been watching this whole time from the nosebleed seats.
This isn't progress guys.
09-24-2009, 02:04 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Posts: 439
Does your current contract say "all aircraft types" like the new LOA does? If not then this is a new payscale. Your union leadership is terrible
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
captain_drew
Flight Schools and Training
38
12-05-2012 08:29 AM
