Airline Pilot Central Forums - December 9E/XJ/9L TA Poll

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Regional (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/)

- - December 9E/XJ/9L TA Poll (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/55678-december-9e-xj-9l-ta-poll.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by PapaMike (Post 919808)

It will not be easier in 5 years. How is the company going to feel different about raising the rates then than they do now? I really don't see how it has anything to do with the company to be honest. They have a finacial value they can support and be a viable company. Why in the world would they care where the money goes. If ALPA went to them and said we will pay all our jet pilots 1 dollar an hour and the q 100 an hour. If it fit in their financial plans they wouldn't care.

The time to fix things is never in the future. It's always now.

You are exactly right, but missing the point. Management doesn't care where the money comes from. The other option is to take away from the jet rates. However, I'm not going to ask PCL or MSA pilots to take cuts to supplement my payraise. To avoid Mesaba Saab pilots from taking paycuts and to ensure that PCL FOs didn't take a paycut with their rise in insurance, this is how the deal was brought together. This is why the next time from now is exactly the time to address this, because then you aren't merging three pilot groups with three different cultures.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PapaMike (Post 919843)

But if the contract is apparently worthless and able to be worked around by the company when they want to then what's the point?

The POINT is that a contract protects those pilots who ACTUALLY SIGN IT. Why do you feel that the Mesaba contract, which was negotiated before we were even an ALPA carrier, should protect OUR pilots?

You guys seem to be losing sight of what this whole thing is about, ELIMINATING THE WHIPSAW. Imagine the obscenities that we would be hearing when Mesaba pilots operate Colgan routes WITHOUT a Joint Contract / SLI.

The whole pay rate thing is like eating your spinach as a kid. It doesn't taste very good going down, but you grow up big and strong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebl14 (Post 919844)

Why do you think its worthless? I don't understand this statement. There are a few downfalls in this agreement, I think 401k is horrible unless you are super senior. But this is better than pinnacle could have done alone, and far and away better than colgan could ever dream of by themselves.

The worthless comment was due to the post saying that we won't get mesabas contract if we didn't sign this because the company wouldn't want it. Well if the company can go around the contract that easily then they are worthless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kellwolf (Post 919865)

Over the life of the contract, the Q doesn't pay less than the -200.....it pays the same. Like was mentioned, by year 3, the Q is at Horizon's current rates. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what Colgan pilots WANTED?!?!? If you told Colgan pilots they'd be getting Horizon rates on the Q in their new contract this time last year, you'd be met with looks of disbelief. Now, it's not enough. Odds are VERY good that Horizon's pay rates are either gonna stagnate or reverse because of their agreement to baseball style arbitration.

The whole "the Q400 is where the growth is, so it should pay better" makes no sense. If Delta announced they were gonna be growing the 737s in their fleet, should it pay more than the 777 or the 757? If we took delivery of another 30 Qs, it would still be fewer than the number of -900s and way fewer than the number of -200s.

In the end, everyone has to make the choice for themselves. If some feel that the split pay rate on the Saab or the Q400 pay rates outweigh the other aspects of the contract, then it's your right to vote "no" on the deal. I'm not a huge fan of the health care premiums and co-pays going up as much as they do for 9E, but I don't think it's enough to kill the whole deal for me. At the end of the day, I'm still taking home more $$$ with better protections on my QoL even with the increased health care costs.

Bolded part is completely false. The Q rates are no where near equal to the 50 seat jet until DOS +5
As for paying where to growth is: I don't expect the airframe that has to growth to get payed unreasonably(ie; i dont expect a 737 to pay more than a 777) But that's what everyone on here is saying should happen. Its like saying a 737(50 seat plane) should be payed more then a 767(74 seat plane) What is the justification? Historical precidence aside, you have none.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PapaMike

As for paying where to growth is: I don't expect the airframe that has to growth to get payed unreasonably(ie; i dont expect a 737 to pay more than a 777) But that's what everyone on here is saying should happen. Its like saying a 737(50 seat plane) should be payed more then a 767(74 seat plane) What is the justification? Historical precidence aside, you have none.

I don't think that's directly what folks are saying.

I think they're saying trends tend to indicate that the Q fleet will grow, while the 50-seat jet fleet shrinks (at least that's what the tea leaves are saying).

The Q has what,74 seats to the CRJ-200's 50 seats, right? And there is plenty of precedent for increased pay for flying a larger aircraft with more passenger seats, correct?

So...wouldn't it follow that if higher-paying, smaller (in terms of seating) aircraft go away and are replaced with lower-paying, larger aircraft that the larger aircraft should have pay AT LEAST on par with the smaller aircraft, lest the pilot group loose income as the fleet is restructured?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoilerUP (Post 919979)

Im not following. Its seems like you are trying to refute what I said but you said something very similar to what I said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PapaMike (Post 919988)

Im not following. Its seems like you are trying to refute what I said but you said something very similar to what I said.

I'm not refuting you, simply saying I don't think MOST are saying "the Q400 is growing and therefore should be paid higher".

I think most are saying "the Q400 has more seats, and therefore should be paid higher"...which has industry precedent and is completely reasonable. Additionally, given the possible (I'd say likely) scenario of the Q fleet growing and the CR2 fleet shrinking, it makes all the more sense for it to have pay parity with the 50-seat jet so the pilot group doesn't inadvertently end up losing compensation over the life of the contract thanks to a fleet evolution.

But yes, we're in agreement that a growth-for-pay argument is asinine.

[QUOTE=BoilerUP;919979]I don't think that's directly what folks are saying.

I think they're saying trends tend to indicate that the Q fleet will grow, while the 50-seat jet fleet shrinks (at least that's what the tea leaves are saying).

The Q has what,74 seats to the CRJ-200's 50 seats, right? And there is plenty of precedent for increased pay for flying a larger aircraft with more passenger seats, correct?

So...wouldn't it follow that if higher-paying, smaller (in terms of seating) aircraft go away and are replaced with lower-paying, larger aircraft that the larger aircraft should have pay AT LEAST on par with the smaller aircraft, lest the pilot group loose income as the fleet is restructured?[/QUOTE]

ding ding ding, we have a winner

Of course management wants to keep cost on the 70 t-prop as low as possible. After everything is signed and done then wait for the announcement that the 200 will be parked as the costs are too high on that airframe to remain competetive. What is left will be the 900's with little hope for growth and the low paying 70 seat t-prop where the growth will be.

Just look at AirWilly from 2001, largest pay increases went to the BAE-146. During restructuring they were parked and the owners probably laughed all the way to the bank as they had locked in lower 50 seat rates.

There is no way a 70 seat aircraft should pay less than a 50 seat aircraft.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dosbo (Post 919997)

ding ding ding, we have a winner

Of course management wants to keep cost on the 70 t-prop as low as possible. After everything is signed and done then wait for the announcement that the 200 will be parked as the costs are too high on that airframe to remain competetive. What is left will be the 900's with little hope for growth and the low paying 70 seat t-prop where the growth will be.

Just look at AirWilly from 2001, largest pay increases went to the BAE-146. During restructuring they were parked and the owners probably laughed all the way to the bank as they had locked in lower 50 seat rates.

There is no way a 70 seat aircraft should pay less than a 50 seat aircraft.

They top out at the same. The money wasn't there and they weren't about to give someone a pay cut and they weren't about to take the FOs to the wood shed. Why can no one understand this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by PapaMike (Post 919976)

Bolded part is completely false. The Q rates are no where near equal to the 50 seat jet until DOS +5

Actually they match at DOS +4 not five. Also the difference is 6.8% at DOS, 4.8% DOS+1, 2.8% at DOS+2, 1.4% at DOS+3, then match for DOS+4 and beyond. Depending on what the longevity of the most senior is the spread at DOS is $4.14 to $6.85, DOS+1 $3.02 to $5.01, DOS+2 $1.81 to $2.99, DOS+3 $0.92 to $1.53, DOS+4 0.00

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayray2 (Post 920005)

They top out at the same. The money wasn't there and they weren't about to give someone a pay cut and they weren't about to take the FOs to the wood shed. Why can no one understand this?

most of us do :)