RAH 100 seat pay
03-23-2010, 03:56 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: E170/175 CA
Posts: 334
RAH 100 seat pay
While I realize this post will surely bring on a lot of flaming, I thought maybe a handful of you would be interested...
Today is the day that the IBT finally gets the issue of 190 pay heard by an arbitrator. The exact issue, for those who do not know, is that most (not all) of the current RAH 190's have 100 seats physically installed. The RAH CBA covers compensation for all aircraft types up to 99 seats. Over 99 seats, the CBA has a defined method and timetable for negotiating new pay rates. The company refused to negotiate new pay, and has removed the seatbelt from one seat, claiming that the 100th seat was deactivated, and therefore there is no reason to create a new pay scale.
Things is the pilots' favor:
Certain factors are in our favor, and may lead to a overall positive outcome. One is that the 100th seat is depicted in all of our manuals. That is company acknowledgment of the 100th seat. Likewise, deactivation implies installation of the 100th seat. Also, that 100th seat is included in weight and balance calculations. But most importantly, the company has set a precedent that favors us. Our 135/140 pilots are paid less per hour than our 145 pilots. However, our 135/140 pilots receive the 145 (50 seat) payrate anytime they fly a 145. If a 135 pilot flies a 145 with one or more seats MEL'd, the 135 pilot has always received the 145 pay rate. The company has a history of paying us based on seats installed, not seats that are active for a flight.
Things working against us:
Our CBA says that a new payscale must be established for the 100+seat aircraft. Our union wants that to mean that both captains and F/O's are entitled to a new payrate. However, our CBA also states that all jet f/o's are paid according to the well known lousy f/o scale currently in place. It is very likely, in my opinion, that the company will avoid having to pay F/Os more for the 190, but that captains will get some improved pay out of the case.
I know, and frankly so does everyone else on this board, how you feel about RAH pay. You can go ahead and post how little faith you have in the IBT or whatever, but at least you know now that the legal processes have not been overlooked or ignored, and that the IBT has been working on this issue since it became an issue. Nothing happens quick in the legal system, and extra time was spent getting our case heard by an arbitrator who is more likely to look favorably upon our side of the story.
Disclaimer: I am not a part of the union other than a general member, and I do not know how exactly the IBT intends to present our case.
Today is the day that the IBT finally gets the issue of 190 pay heard by an arbitrator. The exact issue, for those who do not know, is that most (not all) of the current RAH 190's have 100 seats physically installed. The RAH CBA covers compensation for all aircraft types up to 99 seats. Over 99 seats, the CBA has a defined method and timetable for negotiating new pay rates. The company refused to negotiate new pay, and has removed the seatbelt from one seat, claiming that the 100th seat was deactivated, and therefore there is no reason to create a new pay scale.
Things is the pilots' favor:
Certain factors are in our favor, and may lead to a overall positive outcome. One is that the 100th seat is depicted in all of our manuals. That is company acknowledgment of the 100th seat. Likewise, deactivation implies installation of the 100th seat. Also, that 100th seat is included in weight and balance calculations. But most importantly, the company has set a precedent that favors us. Our 135/140 pilots are paid less per hour than our 145 pilots. However, our 135/140 pilots receive the 145 (50 seat) payrate anytime they fly a 145. If a 135 pilot flies a 145 with one or more seats MEL'd, the 135 pilot has always received the 145 pay rate. The company has a history of paying us based on seats installed, not seats that are active for a flight.
Things working against us:
Our CBA says that a new payscale must be established for the 100+seat aircraft. Our union wants that to mean that both captains and F/O's are entitled to a new payrate. However, our CBA also states that all jet f/o's are paid according to the well known lousy f/o scale currently in place. It is very likely, in my opinion, that the company will avoid having to pay F/Os more for the 190, but that captains will get some improved pay out of the case.
I know, and frankly so does everyone else on this board, how you feel about RAH pay. You can go ahead and post how little faith you have in the IBT or whatever, but at least you know now that the legal processes have not been overlooked or ignored, and that the IBT has been working on this issue since it became an issue. Nothing happens quick in the legal system, and extra time was spent getting our case heard by an arbitrator who is more likely to look favorably upon our side of the story.
Disclaimer: I am not a part of the union other than a general member, and I do not know how exactly the IBT intends to present our case.
03-23-2010, 04:43 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: EMB-145
Posts: 427
Good luck. Most contract improvements are done incrementally. Every time one airline is able to raise the bar it makes it easier for the next one. In this case, obtaining improved FO pay would set a new standard in regional pilot contracts.
The logic of for low FO pay was that upgrades were fast enough it didn't really matter. Also, regional airlines had traditionally been "stepping stone" airlines. This resulted in very weak union participation since most members had their eye on building time and bailing for a major airline instead of spending their time working on building a better regional airline pilot contract. As more and more regional pilots are finding out, their "stepping stone" airline is quickly becoming a "final step" airline. Now they are in the position of having to correct 30 years of poor contracts in order to be properly compensated for their position. The next four years of regional pilot contract negotiations should show significant changes if I am correct.
The logic of for low FO pay was that upgrades were fast enough it didn't really matter. Also, regional airlines had traditionally been "stepping stone" airlines. This resulted in very weak union participation since most members had their eye on building time and bailing for a major airline instead of spending their time working on building a better regional airline pilot contract. As more and more regional pilots are finding out, their "stepping stone" airline is quickly becoming a "final step" airline. Now they are in the position of having to correct 30 years of poor contracts in order to be properly compensated for their position. The next four years of regional pilot contract negotiations should show significant changes if I am correct.
03-23-2010, 05:28 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 137
Originally Posted by Beagle Pilot
The next four years of regional pilot contract negotiations should show significant changes if I am correct.
ATW Daily News
The article has been posted elsewhere on this forum, and Swelbar has more to say on his blog.
Swelblog / Swelbar on Airlines - Articles - Mainline Pilot Scope: Will Regional Carriers Be Permitted to Fly 90+ SeatAircraft?
03-23-2010, 05:55 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Capt
Posts: 611
Originally Posted by HawkerJet
A little something on the topic.
ATW Daily News
The article has been posted elsewhere on this forum, and Swelbar has more to say on his blog.
Swelblog / Swelbar on Airlines - Articles - Mainline Pilot Scope: Will Regional Carriers Be Permitted to Fly 90+ SeatAircraft?
ATW Daily News
The article has been posted elsewhere on this forum, and Swelbar has more to say on his blog.
Swelblog / Swelbar on Airlines - Articles - Mainline Pilot Scope: Will Regional Carriers Be Permitted to Fly 90+ SeatAircraft?
If these 100 seat planes were flow with United colors then we would have an issue.
I just hope you guys get a fair rate for these things or we are all screwed.
Last edited by JustAMushroom; 03-23-2010 at 05:56 AM. Reason: Brain Fart
03-23-2010, 06:12 AM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 227
Originally Posted by Beagle Pilot
Good luck. Most contract improvements are done incrementally. Every time one airline is able to raise the bar it makes it easier for the next one. In this case, obtaining improved FO pay would set a new standard in regional pilot contracts.
The logic of for low FO pay was that upgrades were fast enough it didn't really matter. Also, regional airlines had traditionally been "stepping stone" airlines. This resulted in very weak union participation since most members had their eye on building time and bailing for a major airline instead of spending their time working on building a better regional airline pilot contract. As more and more regional pilots are finding out, their "stepping stone" airline is quickly becoming a "final step" airline. Now they are in the position of having to correct 30 years of poor contracts in order to be properly compensated for their position. The next four years of regional pilot contract negotiations should show significant changes if I am correct.
The logic of for low FO pay was that upgrades were fast enough it didn't really matter. Also, regional airlines had traditionally been "stepping stone" airlines. This resulted in very weak union participation since most members had their eye on building time and bailing for a major airline instead of spending their time working on building a better regional airline pilot contract. As more and more regional pilots are finding out, their "stepping stone" airline is quickly becoming a "final step" airline. Now they are in the position of having to correct 30 years of poor contracts in order to be properly compensated for their position. The next four years of regional pilot contract negotiations should show significant changes if I am correct.
were you part of the negotiating EXCO in 2003 when the contract was ratified? No?..... that's what I thought. Don't claim to know what happened or the "why"s of what was negotiated.
03-23-2010, 06:17 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 137
Originally Posted by JustAMushroom
This topic has little to do with 'scope' because these 100 seat planes are flown for Republic/Frontier/MidWest. Essentially their own airline. They could buy 747's and still be outside the area of scope.
If these 100 seat planes were flow with United colors then we would have an issue.
I just hope you guys get a fair rate for these things or we are all screwed.
If these 100 seat planes were flow with United colors then we would have an issue.
I just hope you guys get a fair rate for these things or we are all screwed.
Pay is only part of the much larger issue looming for this industry.
03-23-2010, 06:23 AM
#8
The NeverEnding Story
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,512
Originally Posted by HawkerJet
True, RAH is operating the 190's as Midwest which they own, but how long till they do show up in United colors? A regional is flying a 100 seat aircraft, it will spread. Scope.
FWIW, I know a few VERY senior UAL 777 captains (whose many feel are most likely to sell narrowbody scope) that are adamant about protecting what little scope they have left.
22. "Small Jets" means (a) Jet Aircraft that are certificated in the United States of America for seventy (70) or fewer seats and a maximum permitted gross takeoff weight of less than eighty thousand (80,000) pounds and (b) up to eighteen (18) specific aircraft with certificated seating capacity in excess of seventy (70) seats operated by Feeder Carrier Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. ("AWAC"). These eighteen aircraft are identified as the "AWAC Quota".. Currently, the AWAC Quota is filled by BAe-146 aircraft with the following tail numbers: N463AP, N179US, N181US, N183US, N606AW, N607AW, N608AW, N609AW, N610AW, N611AW, N612AW, N614AW, N615AW, N616AW, N290UE, N291UE, N292UE, and N156TR. AWAC may replace any aircraft within the AWAC Quota with: (i) any other BAe-146 or AVRO 85 aircraft each with no more passenger seats than were carried in the actual operation of the replaced aircraft, or (ii) any other aircraft with a maximum certificated seating capacity in the United States of eighty-five (85) seats and a maximum certificated gross takeoff weight in the United States of up to ninety thousand (90,000) pounds.
03-23-2010, 06:38 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 132
Originally Posted by sizzlechest
were you part of the negotiating EXCO in 2003 when the contract was ratified? No?..... that's what I thought. Don't claim to know what happened or the "why"s of what was negotiated.
03-23-2010, 06:43 AM
#10
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,256
Originally Posted by JustAMushroom
This topic has little to do with 'scope' because these 100 seat planes are flown for Republic/Frontier/MidWest. Essentially their own airline. They could buy 747's and still be outside the area of scope.
The usual loophole around this is to keep them on separate operating certs.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
captain_drew
Flight Schools and Training
38
12-05-2012 08:29 AM
