Dumb question; Is the flow proposed in this TA applicable to current pilots only, or also inclusive of future newhires? Sorry, I tried the 'search this thread' function, but my tablet is NOT cooperating to make a long story short. Thanks!

Everyone on property and all future new hires.

Did you work for any of these guys?

Fellow American Eagle pilots:

If you are not aware, the MEC voted to recall me last week, and the only explanation given was that I "associate" with "Team Tony," whatever that means.

Not surprisingly, the five MEC members attempting to recall me did not conduct any policy research and therefore believed they had recalled me with a five to four vote, rather than the two-thirds required by ALPA's constitution and bylaws. Therefore I am still the MEC Vice Chairman, and as such I will continue to fulfill the duties I committed to at the time of my election.

The reason for me writing you today is not to bemoan the MEC, but to give you a leadership perspective on the current Tentative Agreement so that you can make an educated decision, rather than cast a vote on the baseless emotion of those MEC members who are working diligently to secure a "no" vote. I have zero faith that the current SPC and Comm committees are either capable of or interested in providing you with a factual basis upon which to make your decision. With that in mind, the following is an attempt to cut through the emotions and games, and to take a sober and thoughtful look at the circumstances around this decision.


There is a much larger battle occurring than what exists on Eagle property. There is a difference in opinion among managements on which solution is better. That contrast is no better drawn than by looking at what is occurring between Republic Airways and American Eagle. Republic CEO Brian Bedford has publicly stated that he can no longer staff all of his 50-seat and Q-400 fleets and that the solution lies in a combination of relaxed legislation and bettering the economics of pilot contracts to attract new pilot applicants. In contrast, AAL management believes that the cost of operating regional aircraft must remain low, lest feed operators become unviable. Rather than enhance the economics of regional contracts, they are trying to offer guaranteed job protection in the form of minimum fleet counts and guaranteed mainline jobs.

Truthfully, both of these concepts are legitimate and both deserve a fair look.

Today, American Eagle has no fleet protection at all. AAL has already determined a provider to assume our current CRJ-700 flying, has placed 30 of its large RJ orders at PSA, and allegedly has a provider ready to assume the first set of EMB-175 orders. I've heard it argued that that's a lie, and that no other carrier is waiting in the wings to operate these airplanes. I happen to know that it is true, but even if you don't choose to believe this, management would be completely negligent if it didn't have a contingency plan for a major unit of its business. Of course it has a "Plan B" in case we do not come to terms. It has also been argued that this is all a bluff, that we're going to to receive those airplanes anyway. Even if that's true--and that's a big "if"--that process would take months and months to play out as management shops the airplanes around, maybe doling out some of them to other carriers. During this time, our current airplanes, and the jobs that come with them, will steadily disappear. The longer Eagle pilots delay coming to a ratifiable agreement, the smaller our piece of the pie becomes, even in this best-case they're-gonna-come-back-to-us scenario.

On the contrary, AAL is willing to offer Eagle pilots a minimum of 170 aircraft for the duration of the agreement (twice the size of the only other fleet guarantee in the entire industry) and enhance the flow through (already far-and-away the best flow program in the industry) such that Eagle pilots will receive the FIRST THIRTY new hire positions at AA every month. In other words, if AA hires only 20, they will all be Eagle pilots. If AA hires 30, they will all be Eagle pilots. If AA hires 40, 30 will be Eagle pilots and 10 will be street hires. This is a huge improvement over today's program where if AA hires 20, only 10 would be Eagle pilots, and if they hire 50, only 20 are from Eagle.

We have performed the analysis and given AA's known Age 65 attrition alone, and putting aside any growth, no newly hired pilot will ever be capped at step 4 on the F/O scale, nor will any newly-hired pilot be capped at step 12 on the CA scale, unless they elect not to flow. Very few of us already here will ever reach the caps, and those who do would only be capped for a portion of a year. Naturally, this all assumes the flow is working like it should, like it currently is working. There exists this concern that the flow will stop or slow and all these rosy projections about how quickly we'll all be at AA will be out the window. Those of us who were FOs for 8+ years are well aware of what happens when the music stops. And we also know that the industry is cyclical, that yes things are moving now but it doesn't take much to make it stop. And this is all true. Because of this experience, we tried and tried to get the company to tie the pay step reductions in the TA to some kind of flow performance, thus putting the liability for the flow working correctly on the company. We were able to delay the reduction of the FO scales, but ultimately the liability for the flow stopping rests with us--there are no two ways about it. If the flow stops, our Captains will still be capped at Step 12. But here's the thing: if the flow stops, it's because something terrible happened in the world--some major geopolitical event, warfare, fuel supplies cut off, some major catastrophe. And if this happens God forbid, merely standing pat with our current contract isn't going to help us either. Sure, we might earn a few more dollars for a few months as our company and industry are breaking down, but whether we ratify this TA and the music stops, or we stay with our current contract and the music stops, our situation will be dire and the company will be seeking relief either through the courts or liquidation. This new management will not simply let another "lost decade" happen, where over a third of its Captains are at 18-year pay. They will act. Regardless, there is no protection, either in the TA or in our current agreement, against a major geopolitical event harming our careers. And short of a major geopolitical event, based on Age-65 retirements alone at the mainline, there is no scenario where the flow stops for an appreciable length of time.

Some pilots have claimed that the pilot shortage will rescue us. Two things you should consider: first, the entire regional industry is trading in an average of two 50-seat aircraft for one large RJ, thus greatly reducing the size of the required regional pilot population. This does not negate the pilot shortage situation we find ourselves in, but it does elongate it and soften it. Second, AAL is the only mainline carrier that currently enjoys overcapacity in its regional feed. As it consolidates AA and US Airways, it will need less overall feed. What a tragedy it would be if Eagle becomes the carrier from which it decides to "right size." A shortage of supply is great for suppliers, unless the shortened supply actually reduces demand, and that's exactly the situation we could be facing. Also, if we find ourselves with a true shortage, wouldn't we rather have a minimum of 170 hulls that the company must fly? Or be in the middle of a massive shortage with no fleet plan, where they can just shrink us to deal with the problem. If this TA is ratified and a shortage does happen, we will have significant leverage due to our min 170 aircraft.

It may sound like I am trying to sell you this deal, but I AM NOT. I simply want you to understand why I see this tentative agreement as a legitimate concept that deserves your consideration. It may deserve a "no" vote but that vote should be based on educated thought and not on raw emotion.

Some believe that if we say "no" to this agreement that AAL management will have to come back to Eagle again. I share this belief but not in the same manner as many. AAL will likely come back again, eventually, but to an Eagle that has lost its CRJ-700 fleet, lost a couple dozen of its 50-seat jets, and the offer next time, should there be one, will be substantially smaller since many of the 150 EMB-175s will already be placed elsewhere. Also, many of the new hire positions we are being offered in AA's new hire classes will be promised to another carrier willing to adopt these concepts, so any enhanced flow in a future offer will either be diminished or nonexistent.

Republic's deal is also legitimate. It has across-the-board raises, significant enhancements in trip and duty rigs, and may other smaller items. Though it is not clear if even their TA will be ratified by their membership, it is the kind of contract that regional pilots have become used to in the post-9/11 era, when we fought to make regional airlines a career option out of necessity. However, there is a dirty little secret about Republic's TA: Republic Airways cannot afford this contract without winning additional flying. It isn't going to win that from Delta, who has already got rate-resets built into its existing feed contracts that will result in underpricing Republic. It also is unlikely to win any new feed from AAG, because we have already seen what AAG management is willing to pay. That leaves a limited market in United, who has recently been contracting with feed providers with cost structures like Mesa. Not only that, but the more mainline new-hire seats are committed to flow-through pilots, the fewer there are available to pilots from elsewhere. This means that carriers like Republic with no flow-through agreements will stagnate. Pilots who go there thinking they'll take the higher wages and then just go interview at a mainline may find themselves locked out. Delta will likely start a robust flow program with Endeavor, maybe even restart its flow with Compass, so there may be very few Delta hirees off the street. AAG already has an obligation to us, and the enhanced flow currently being offered to us will almost certainly go to PSA or Piedmont pilots, so there will be very few seats available to "off the street" hires at AA. This leaves very few mainline seats for pilots from other regionals to compete, and it's why I believe that a robust flow-through model for pilot recruitment, such as the one being offered us, is a better and more sustainable one than what Republic is attempting.

I know we all like what we've seen of Republic's new TA but if Republic is unable to sustain it, all gains could quickly be lost in Chapter 11.

Some pilots claim that we need to "hold the bar" on the regional industry. But let's consider this question: which is a better bar to set? A 30 per month guaranteed flow through without expiration, a minimum fleet guarantee of 170 hulls, and an enforceable guarantee that Eagle's inability to staff will NOT allow it to reduce the flow, with the cost being capping pay steps at 12 and 4 with some exceptions? Or, is it better to have no job progression to a mainline, no fleet protection, and yet fight to keep the regional airline a top peer career from which one can retire? I know the Comair pilots had a great career contract, but it lacked a minimum fleet count or a flow-through that does more to reduce costs than any possible concession.

Even if we think the 12/4 caps are disgusting, and that first year pay is too low to attract any new hires especially if Republic ratifies, then aren't we in the driver's seat? The company has staked its whole recruitment model on the flowthrough. If that doesn't work and they find that new applicants are going to, say, Republic for better starting wages, then the first thing Eagle will have to do is come back to us and beg us to raise wages. Meanwhile, we've already secured the fleet guarantee and the flow program that no one in the industry can approach let alone match.

At the end of the day, you have to decide which paradigm is better: the concept of a regional airline becoming the entry point to a mainline carrier with the tradeoff being that the regional will no longer be a retirement option for future pilots. Or is the better concept to hang on to what we have gained since 9/11, where regional airlines provide retirement opportunities for willing pilots, but the tradeoff is the constant whipsaw that exists when there is no fleet guarantee and no flow through to keep longevity costs down?



One concluding thought. Over the years, I have heard pilots state that we shouldn't vote for anything because management is only going to violate it. And I know that when you're flying the line and crew scheduling makes you fly what you believe to be an illegal trip, the feeling of frustration and helplessness is hard to shake. But it is not an accurate picture of the full story. Please recall that the only reason we have the 824 agreement or the Protected Pilot agreement is because management did violate our contract and these two crucial programs resulted from the company being held responsible for those violations. So, while you may not want to better an agreement for fear that management will simply violate it, our clear and consistent history has been that we are better off arbitrating over language we believe benefits us than not to have that language at all.

No one likes concessions, I get it. This pilot group has been beaten down by management going on four years now, first over divestiture, then of course bankruptcy, and now this negotiation. We're all sick and tired of having our jobs threatened while upper management brags about how much money it has. No doubt the company's PR has been horrible, which only puts it in line with damn near every other company in the world. While we're all weary of this nonsense and while we all agree it has to stop somewhere, upper management doesn't get it and they never will. Voting no on this TA is not going to wise them up or teach them any lessons. So our choice is either to lament what's become of corporate ethics in our time and make an emotional and self-sabotaging vote based solely on that, or we can think about what's best for us and our futures. We can't just say no to everything forever. At some point we have to create a vision for the future and embrace it. To me, cradle-to-grave career progression, along with fleet and pay protections for pilots already here who wish to retire is that future, and that's what this deal achieves. Nothing is guaranteed of course, but in this industry, this TA is as close as it gets.

I appreciate you taking the time to read this long letter. I hope that doing so has helped you to understand why both of these concepts, while vastly different, are both deserving of your thoughtful consideration, and I trust you can tune out (as I will) the political and viciously ad hominem attacks which will no doubt be headed my way for this, and consider the ideas I've presented and either accept or reject them with clarity and honesty.

Fraternally,

Matt Rettig
MEC Vice-Chairman

Just go away Matt. You are a coward willing to take this crap contract to keep your life normal(for a sell out) and screw everyone else below you. When this aip fails then we'll all know who the cowards are. Only people listening to you are you. You're mentality is I got mine **** all of you.

Type in Matt rettig Alpa on Google and you can see what a sell out looks like

That would be a depressing letter from a line pilot. I kept thinking "battered wife syndrome" as I read it. And that's a member of the MEC! :eek: (fortunately in the minority).

Matt has never seen an offer from management that he did not like. As negotiation chairman he thought a fleet plan was not important during bankruptcy, but he does no 12 months later, guess when we were arguing for it he and tony g were well on the take by management and LIED to the pilots.
Matt will be out at the next MEC meeting, the four voting to keep him are down to one and those five to kick him out of the MEC are seven now.

Matt is a union leader working for the company and the collaborator (traitors) labor relations kiss a zzz.

So if no pilots will ever see the 12yr/4yr pay caps why is that such a must have for management?

For the next down cycle, when the flow stops, and low rates for larger aircraft all for minimum 10 years. Down cycle is just around the corner and Putin is going to cause oil to go up 20% minimum because he needs the money for Russia. This job better said this industry is effected by everything and mostly for the bad.

Withe the new aa scope, any feeder can fly any type of aircraft on the same certificate that is feeding aa as long as the feed aircraft to aa meet the restriction 76 seats and 86000 mtow. All other aircraft can be used for ant other purpose, example they get the c300, with the aid if aa for reservation and one world membership and a code share with one world they can fly an airplane with 125 seats for the price of the crj700 for ten years.

It is not what they show you that that is the plan, the plan they don't show you is the important one.

Now jump on.

YES, this. Why is management hot about payscales no one will ever reach*? :confused::rolleyes:

*so they claim

Buddies, you make a valid point but let me use part of you example and play devils advocate for a second. I do this simply to understand where you're coming from and your thoughts, not to argue.

Say that 'black swan' moment is around the corner and oil jumps or something else catastrophic happens. As it stands now, Eagle has no fleet guarantees of any nature and management seems hell bent to diversify feed and find lower cost options. If oil does skyrocket as you stated, wouldn't it be even more imperative for management to seek that lower cost option (i.e. say Mesa or anyone else for example).

At the same time, if such a black swan event happens, wouldn't you assume that hiring at all levels (especially majors) will be tempered to a certain extent if not done for, for the time being until retirements really ramp up more. Therefore, places will stagnate to a certain degree for a least a while, and in the meantime if that flying does shift (because Eagle currently has not fleet guarantee) it would only make it easier for another regional to staff...i.e. regional pilot shortage a moot point.

On the other hand, if Eagle DID have a fleet plan of minimum 170 frames, and oil shot the roof (or any other event), wouldn't it be more advantageous to have that guarantee and ride it out until hiring would resume. At least in that scenario, regardless of costs of oil, labor, aircraft, etc, Eagle would be sheltered unlike if it did not have any sort of fleet plan. In that case management would have even more incentive to shift flying due to costs and aircraft inefficiency, and staffing would no longer be an issue due to decrease in hiring at the majors because of the oil costs and lower yields, which would inevitably result in flight reductions.

I could be totally wrong but maybe there's food for thought.

Why would you rather hang yourself than work for Eagle? I assumed Eagle had captains knocking out 6 figures. How is it easier to quit and change professions than to vote to raise this one? I know King Air and light jet captains making 30-40K, sure they don’t work as much, but it’s still a full time commitment and not easy to raise kids on. I feel like the reason the movement is slow is because once you make captain it is difficult to move vertically somewhere else. I don’t think 1500+- captains at Eagle are hanging around for the pension, it because it’s difficult to achieve their salary elsewhere. If you can make more than captain pay elsewhere than you should start today; just because your career expectations have been beaten down doesn’t mean you’re still not in the best position to be in. You will be a captain or at mainline in five years regardless of this vote. I feel like you want a change so bad in your career that, you may be duped into believing this will alter the course.
Lastly, your MEC voted no to last year’s deal. Those actions directly improved the deal you have now. They do have your interest, and think the next deal will be even better than this one or the one previous. How would you feel after knowing this deal, if they would have said well we did the math and it won’t hurt us, so will take your first offer of concessions after bk, while making money. Mind you it was much closer to the pinnacle vote and before the xjet vote, and they still had reason enough to know the next deal would be better. You would have never gotten what you claim to be happy with now.

You have valid points. My personal priorities have pay ranked very low, my wife works and combined we make about 60k a year which more than pays all of our bills and allows us to save for retirement. In my eyes the regionals are not a career option even if the pay was 200k a year. I want better qol and more time off and with the current type of flying most regionals do that is impossible.

Everyone's priorities are different and I respect that. I am at peace whichever way this thing plays out.

I agree the MEC made good decisions up to this point, I thought the company had more to offer after the last "no" vote. From my gambling perspective this offer is the last best one, I'm not worried eagle will shut down, it won't. However, it will shrink which will adversely affect my career. I've got 5 years left to make a major or bust, so this agreement works well enough for me.

What about the language in the TA that basically says the company doesn't have to fulfil its obligations pending such events "including, but not limited to..." Bam, fleet guarantee out the window. Pay scales stick around.

I'm not familiar with what you're saying, I didn't read the entire TA so you may very well be correct.

But from what I did read the only thing that could be construed as vague and ambiguous in that regards was in Paragraph G of the Enhanced Flow Rights LOA, which talks about aircraft deliveries as it pertains to the Flow LOA. Take a look at it and you will see what I mean.

Aside from wild speculation of oil spikes, wars, and mass catastrophes, it seems quite unambiguous about the fleet and flow. We can sit here all days and say what if about any black swan event but that seems futile. And as I pointed out in my previous post, if in fact the fleet guarantee is firm, if such an event happened, you may be happy you had that minimum frames language.

In any case, I'm quite indifferent about the outcome. I'm just throwing things out there for thought and am not trying to argue with you or others because I can definitely understand where you're coming from and see your point of view.

I really am sympathetic to your story.
Eagle will shrink anyway; when you add planes that are 50% larger you will either have 50% growth in seat sales or shrink the fleet and thus pilots. With that said bigger ships equals lees frequency, less turns and possibly better schedules. If you fight for your Qol you will have a better Qol it didn’t magically happen at the majors they fought for it, you seem to put all your stock in the winning lottery ticket. If Eagle can get off its heels of concessions than you can position yourself for more days off per month higher vacation accrual or more long call reserves spots, even if pay is not your priority. There is no bust in 5 years. 5 years from now you will be 5 years older still need to provide for your family be further down the same road, and it will be even harder to switch professions. There is no magical opportunity; if you want a better life you must build a better life. The company is not forcing concessions they are offering them, the pilots choose what they live with.


If the company wants pay caps why can’t they give you a seniority number now? Then you could work under you cap not costing them a dime extra until you can hold the 777 if you wanted to. If they want to create flow for new hires they will. They do not need permission to hire their own employees so why should you buy a “guarantee”.

That letter looks like it was written by someone in management and just signed by Matt. What's his DOH?

A fleet guarantee only works if everything is okay. If something catastrophic would happen again, force majeure or BK would be invoked and the fleet guarantee would be DOA. That I can guarantee

Voting NO here.

1. I want to see what the company will do.
2. Maybe I can retire early.
3. Don't want to be associated in any form with PSA pilots.

That may be so, but the same would apply to any contract with any language. It goes both ways.

If such an event would happen with the current contract, what prohibits them from taking us back into BK. They could then do as they please, renegotiate and file a 1013. Regardless of the profits being shown today by airlines, they could evaporate tomorrow if any catastrophic event happens and back into bankruptcy they go.

In my opinion the whole notion of 'what if this' and 'what if that' is moot. It makes no difference and any decision making should be made on the current facts and the TA in itself, without trying to predict WWIII or oil spikes. The whole game changes then with this contract or that.

Vote no, vote yes, I don't really care. But don't try to predict the best or worse possible scenario because it usually is never one or another.

If they aren't following our CURRENT contract, what makes you think they will follow the new one?

Vote NO.

The 5 year cap is so I don't get stuck in a career I hate for the rest of my life. The regionals were never meant to be a career and I'll be damned if I make them one for myself.

As to fighting for better work rules, qol, etc. at the regionals it's not going to happen. It's a dying business model regardless, but it's built on cheap labor to undercut mainline pilot groups. Supply and demand is finally coming into play, and it's far more powerful than any contract we or the company can come up with. Pay will increase as these companies attempt to attract new hires until it reaches a point at which it is no longer financially advantageous to contract out. Flying will go back to mainline and hopefully there will be more jobs, not just less frequency.

In the meantime I want a safety net flow for my 5 years remaining of regional flow and the longer flights done by 175s may give me better schedules.

If you really "don't care", why is it you seem to keep cheerleading for yes votes?

It sounds like you're determined to vote yes to concessions no matter how good the argument is against doing so?

There is no argument against it other than emotions and "what if" scenarios that will screw everyone regardless of contract. The only legitimate argument I've seen are guys who won't vote concessions out of principle, I can respect that.

Personally it's not a concessionary deal. I'm not losing anything I care about (pay, industry average adjustments) and I'm gaining something I do want (better flow). Everyone has different priorities so one broad reasoning is not going to work. I'm not telling anyone else what they should do, the thread wants to know how we voted, I voted yes and I gave my reasoning.

Excuse my ignorance, but if 2 E175s are replacing 3 50 seaters, how would the flights get longer? Or are you referring to E175 flying routes that are occupied by mainline A/C today? So your answer is to give up on QOL as it's not going to happen?

"keep cheerleading"? This was the first time I've even posted since this TA came out. Sorry I pointed out a rational remark that might go against your beliefs. I forgot that this is not a place for reasonable discussions or comments without being labeled or put down.

I can see both sides to ANY argument and could have just as easily pointed out facts for or against. I was simply trying to make a point or cause some thought that might not have been considered. Just because I pointed out facts or questioned someone automatically makes me a "cheerleader."

I can assure you, and if I were to ever fly with you or be around you, I will be just fine with either a yes or no, and won't whine about it. I'll be happy just to have this over with either way.

Cities which cannot reasonably support airline service are going to be getting cut, whether it's frequency or all together. 175s won't be taking mainline flying, there are simply not enough regional pilots to cover what we already have plus additional mainline flying.

I am referring to flying the longer routes we've recently lost to Republic, and dropping a good amount of the 45 minute flying which they cram in and make our lines utter garbage.

I was just asking what I considered to be a reasonable question, not attacking you. I just really have a hard time understanding how you, or any other pilot(Bzzt, etc.) could even consider taking any concessions... I don't see how it's possible that everyone in this profession aren't so sick and tired of sliding backwards that they finally wake up and take a stand against any further concessions and just vote NO! Regionals are canceling flights and pulling aircraft and routes due to the inability to staff. Commutair just got offered large raises with increased benefits including paid hotels in base for commuters. If now is not the time to stop the slide in this profession, then when?

For me, I don't see it as a concession. I'm trading something I don't value much for something I do value. I would not have voted yes if they simply offered concessions with no increased flow and the threat of shutdown. Hope that helps you understand where I'm coming from.

Unfrickenbelievable!! Isn't Bzzt the same guy who led the crusade against the PSA pilots for voting in their contract? What a joke!!

As an outsider looking in, I have a question just to see if anyone can come up educated/wag response.

What I have read is that Eagle/Envoy would be drawn down and close if the AIP was voted down. It was...by the MEC.

Why come back and ask again. If the simple truth was vote for this or else, there are no better deals were to hold true, there would not be this discussion over a vote. Does Parker/AAG have a love for Eagle? History doesn't show this to be true so why keep pressing the Eagle pilots for a contract? Why not stick to your word/statement that they would become the next Comair.

How long can things be drawn out before a decision has to be made. Aren't the E175 coming soon?

At this point I'm not sure there are many who think they will shut us down. The evidence points to a smaller airline for sure, but with the economic climate and lack of qualified applicants I don't believe anyone is in danger of being shut down.

The 175s are supposed to come online at the beginning of next year, I would assume AAG wants some clarity soon. Whether Eagle flies them or they attempt to staff them elsewhere.

Mar 2015 delivery schedule.

1. Fighting for better work rules will happen, but not if people roll over. Which you seem to be doing.
2. Regionals are a dying business model you say.... Then why the f would aa be buying all these rj's?!! United is buying more also. So they are not a dying business model.
3. The problem is rj's are getting bigger, routes are getting longer, displacing mainline routes but the pay is going down.
4. Go ahead vote yes. Enjoy your lifestyle of flying ord to ewr. Knowing that a mainline pilot did the same route a year ago at triple your salary. Have fun

They why vote yes? You just said nobody can staff them and you are in no fear of being shut down. Psa is canceling 15-20 flights a day because they can't even staff their current a/c and they don't even have new planes on property.

Vote NO. Give those crappy EJETS to PSA XJET or whomever.

Defend this profession. Since others aren't.

I'm not worried about being shut down, I want the flow. If I can never get an interview at united or delta I want a safety net.

The regionals are not growing, they're replacing small aircraft for larger aircraft but not increasing the total amount of frames. The pay and qol is not drawing anyone to the regionals anymore, it's a dying model.

Really is not a concessionary deal? REALLY DUDE????!!!!???!!!???!!!???!!!???

How come?

Losing IAI, If you got hired in 2011 you don't know what it is! Other regionals will increase pay scales, and with the IAI we follow them. We will get pay raises every year + your normal payraise!!!!

Btw in Bk they divided the IAI into CA and FO. So if some company get a better FO pay (IE: RAH) they will match basically our pay to them. We can see Commute Air getting raises, others will follow.

More health insurance. You will get a your yearly pay raise and you will expend more money in the insurance.

For what? And "enhanced flow" that is Garbage!!! For pay caps? For reducing our perdiem from 1.85 to 1.80??? Really? Food goes up, our food money goes down!!! We should be at $2.05 this year!!! That's almost $50 per day! You could eat steak almost every night, not fast food ****!

I really hope something happens and we all get stuck in this piece of **** contract!!! Let's see how you will whine being an FO not able to flow and not able to switch careers.

Open your eyes buddy, not everything that shines is gold. This is a turd, something that is attempting to our QOL. Have you seen the lines lately? Wait for the summer!!! They will be 10 times worst.

They can keep the airplanes, we already gave concessions last year! 43 millions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Somebody that haven't been thru IAI, Per Diem increases never in their career don't know what we are really letting go in this 10yr deal!

So, anyone that's being hired after summer 2011, shouldn't drink the cool aid and ask senior people how was living with double yearly pay raises, more per diem a year.

$2.05 per diem (increasing 0.05 every year) vs $1.80 = $60 less a month (in a 300hr TAFB line) = $720 less this year in TAX FREE money, this year only!

Think about it, is not about the fast upgrade, the flow. Is about our QOL, is about leaving our leverage in the table for e-175. Is about not being able to negotiate for 10 years!!!!

Again, just think about it.

Said the same pilots who went to Eagle in the late 90s for the flow through. As much as people say the language is better now, I wouldn't hold my breath.