RAH 100 seat pay
04-06-2010, 05:40 AM
#22
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: CRJ-200 FO
Posts: 57
On the whole seat issue, You can't just take the seat out and call it good. If the Plane was designed from the factory to have a hundred seats, then the pay has to be a hundred seats, the only way I can see it being different is if a first class is available. The First class would make it impossible to implicate a hundred seats. Therefore the pay would have to based upon the maximum amount of seats that could be installed. So if they took out that one seat, there would have to be something in its place (ie closet.)
04-06-2010, 05:56 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: E170/175 CA
Posts: 334
Originally Posted by samuraiguytn
On the whole seat issue, You can't just take the seat out and call it good. If the Plane was designed from the factory to have a hundred seats, then the pay has to be a hundred seats, the only way I can see it being different is if a first class is available. The First class would make it impossible to implicate a hundred seats. Therefore the pay would have to based upon the maximum amount of seats that could be installed. So if they took out that one seat, there would have to be something in its place (ie closet.)
04-06-2010, 06:12 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Posts: 638
Its stuff like this that really raises my blood pressure. How can anyone say the RAH guys were stupid for not defining how their pay scales were determined. As said above, nobody would have imagined the number of seats would have to be defined in a CBA but look where we are. In the end those planes will be flying for months if not years before this all gets sorted out, undoubtedly in management's favor.
I hate lawyers.
I hate lawyers.
04-06-2010, 06:23 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 522
Originally Posted by iPilot
Its stuff like this that really raises my blood pressure. How can anyone say the RAH guys were stupid for not defining how their pay scales were determined. As said above, nobody would have imagined the number of seats would have to be defined in a CBA but look where we are. In the end those planes will be flying for months if not years before this all gets sorted out, undoubtedly in management's favor.
I hate lawyers.
I hate lawyers.
04-06-2010, 06:26 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Posts: 638
Originally Posted by likeitis
I can say they are stupid. I said it in 2003 while the vote was going on. You never base pay on something that can be altered. Pay should be based on specific aircraft or max certified ramp weight. Want to know something else I told the EXCO back in 2003. FO pay rates were a joke and the quick upgrades won't last forever.
04-06-2010, 06:35 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 511
Originally Posted by samuraiguytn
On the whole seat issue, You can't just take the seat out and call it good. If the Plane was designed from the factory to have a hundred seats, then the pay has to be a hundred seats, the only way I can see it being different is if a first class is available. The First class would make it impossible to implicate a hundred seats. Therefore the pay would have to based upon the maximum amount of seats that could be installed. So if they took out that one seat, there would have to be something in its place (ie closet.)
04-06-2010, 07:07 AM
#29
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,322
Originally Posted by iPilot
Fair enough, I'm just sick of airlines being able to get away with murder by finding rediculous loop holes in the contract. My disdain for them is only second to the lawyers we hire to write these contracts that end up getting ripped apart anyway.
I can't recall..do alpa/teamsters national hire a professional law firm for contracts, or do they have some good-old-boy in-house counsel who's too drunk to hold a real job somewhere else?
04-06-2010, 07:25 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 522
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Truer words have never been said. What I don't understand is why pilot groups can't hire competent lawyers to review their contract proposals...this is too often a recurring theme, and not just at regionals.
I can't recall..do alpa/teamsters national hire a professional law firm for contracts, or do they have some good-old-boy in-house counsel who's too drunk to hold a real job somewhere else?
I can't recall..do alpa/teamsters national hire a professional law firm for contracts, or do they have some good-old-boy in-house counsel who's too drunk to hold a real job somewhere else?
3 problems.
1. Need to hire professional negotiators, not pilots. Pilots are too much of control freaks to think that there are other people who can do a better job at anything than themselves.
2. Pilots are too cheap to pay for representation on par with what management uses against us.
3. Most pilots aren't bright enough to look past pay rates and see that the compensation chapter is probably the least important chapter in most contracts.
Last edited by likeitis; 04-06-2010 at 07:41 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
captain_drew
Flight Schools and Training
38
12-05-2012 08:29 AM
