Regional: JUMPSEAT WAR NEAR
09-06-2014 | 05:03 AM
#141
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Management is clever: they have tricked pilots into thinking it is our responsibility to cur our wages to keep their costs down. So what if my pilot group is senior and costs more? That's not my concern. Every time pilots vote in concessions to fly bigger aircraft for less money, pilots are helping to perpetuate the "regional" airline model.
What if everyone just said NO to new concessions? Unfortunately PSA killed the momentum created by pilots with balls when PSA pilots voted YES to fly bigger airplanes for less money.
It should be every pilot's goal to make "regional" airlines as expensive as possible to make "regionals" costs-prohibitive and put an end to the abomination that is the "regional" airline model.
What if everyone just said NO to new concessions? Unfortunately PSA killed the momentum created by pilots with balls when PSA pilots voted YES to fly bigger airplanes for less money.
It should be every pilot's goal to make "regional" airlines as expensive as possible to make "regionals" costs-prohibitive and put an end to the abomination that is the "regional" airline model.
09-06-2014 | 05:10 AM
#142
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
1) everyone voting no is based on everyone having a vote. If the Wholly owned carriers all turned down the offer the a/c would have gone to a contract carrier where a vote was not required.
2) less money? The pay rates for the 700/900 did not change.
2) less money? The pay rates for the 700/900 did not change.
09-06-2014 | 06:01 AM
#143
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
1) As long as the contract carrier pilots don't vote in concessions, I don't have a problem with them getting awarded flying. It proves pilots don't have to take concessions to fly bigger aircraft. I agree we as pilots of wholly-owned AAG "regionals" are a a disadvantage, but that doesn't justify us taking concessions to fly bigger aircraft.
2) PSA pilots voted to chop the top years of higher pay off their payscale. So yes, the PSA pilots voted for the company to pay PSA pilots less money.
Let's make "regional" pilots as expensive as possible to make the "regional" airline model economically unviable and put an end to the horrible "regional airline business model.
2) PSA pilots voted to chop the top years of higher pay off their payscale. So yes, the PSA pilots voted for the company to pay PSA pilots less money.
Let's make "regional" pilots as expensive as possible to make the "regional" airline model economically unviable and put an end to the horrible "regional airline business model.
09-06-2014 | 06:35 AM
#144
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
From: N/A
Where did the idea for B scales and 12/4 caps at the new AA wholly owneds originate? I'm pretty sure the answer is not PSA. Pretty sure the guys that had this brilliant idea are pilots at AA now.
No argument PSA took a bad deal, just stayin'.
No argument PSA took a bad deal, just stayin'.
09-06-2014 | 07:12 AM
#145
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,967
Likes: 0
09-06-2014 | 07:13 AM
#146
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,775
Likes: 18
I don't disagree with you, I also don't make 2500 a month. First year guys here are making that. First year guys who have 1500 hours giving lessons in a 172, is that highly skilled? Well if you've flown with a guy straight from a 172 into a jet then you can answer that. Do I believe in paying your dues the first year at an airline? No I don't but such is life even at the majors. A first year FO on a bus at mainline makes 36k That is an insult and at that point you are experienced, but that's the way it is. I don't believe that just because I had to pay my dues that someone else should have to. I also can't go back to 2500 a month or less because I tried my best to better the industry.
It's not a windfall, but a good airline pays it's first year pilots $53,000. That's a MMG on any aircraft. So, you fly reserve? You make more. Your line is greater than 65 hours, you make more.
What airline are you talking about?
09-06-2014 | 07:22 AM
#147
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,967
Likes: 0
John,
You are missing the point. The regionals don't get that ticket price increase or decrease. They are paid a fee for departure. Very little risk and very high reward if the airline has low cost. The regionals are faced with a diminishing demand for their services, surplus aircraft and believe it or not surplus crews when all the shaking out takes place. The cost associated with operating a 50 seat jet in the FFD scheme only works with relatively new labor.
I do believe your negotiating committee failed the eagle pilots. You say they negotiated what the pilots wanted. The negotiating committee needs to get the best deal possible and be the communicator of the reason why the deal they got was the best. If all the eagle pilots wanted a pony and a chaufered Lexus to drive them to and for work would they be the goal of the negotiating team? Setting realistic expectations are key to the negotiations. Even ALPA national has been sending out notices to the regionals about negotiation expectations since last winter. Just look at the post 9-11 Concessionary contracts at the legacy carriers. Not one pilot wanted to take concessions but the majority understood the landscape and situation that dictated those contracts. Overall airframe numbers at regionals are shrinking. That is a less than optimal time to be negotiating increases. Awareness of what is attainable, setting pilot expectations to those things that are attainable is what your negotiations team and MEC should have been doing. Rattling your saber is only good if you are in the power position to which eagle was not.
For what I have read you are no longer at eagle and suffer no consequences. I am sure you need this story to be spun to make your time remaining in the industry one where you can cast blame but take no responsibility. And before you use the "you guys at the majors gave up scope" argument I was opposed to scope relief and felt we should have operated the RJ's in house. I was only one vote.
You are missing the point. The regionals don't get that ticket price increase or decrease. They are paid a fee for departure. Very little risk and very high reward if the airline has low cost. The regionals are faced with a diminishing demand for their services, surplus aircraft and believe it or not surplus crews when all the shaking out takes place. The cost associated with operating a 50 seat jet in the FFD scheme only works with relatively new labor.
I do believe your negotiating committee failed the eagle pilots. You say they negotiated what the pilots wanted. The negotiating committee needs to get the best deal possible and be the communicator of the reason why the deal they got was the best. If all the eagle pilots wanted a pony and a chaufered Lexus to drive them to and for work would they be the goal of the negotiating team? Setting realistic expectations are key to the negotiations. Even ALPA national has been sending out notices to the regionals about negotiation expectations since last winter. Just look at the post 9-11 Concessionary contracts at the legacy carriers. Not one pilot wanted to take concessions but the majority understood the landscape and situation that dictated those contracts. Overall airframe numbers at regionals are shrinking. That is a less than optimal time to be negotiating increases. Awareness of what is attainable, setting pilot expectations to those things that are attainable is what your negotiations team and MEC should have been doing. Rattling your saber is only good if you are in the power position to which eagle was not.
For what I have read you are no longer at eagle and suffer no consequences. I am sure you need this story to be spun to make your time remaining in the industry one where you can cast blame but take no responsibility. And before you use the "you guys at the majors gave up scope" argument I was opposed to scope relief and felt we should have operated the RJ's in house. I was only one vote.
But why would a mid seniority, middle aged 76 CA know any of this. go lay on the beach on your HNL overnight and get out of our debate. You have zero understanding of the current regional industry. You are clueless, stupid, angry, and add nothing to the discussion.
09-06-2014 | 09:46 AM
#148
Line Holder
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Check the US Airways E-190 rates for a first year FO at US Airways. 3000 per month.
09-06-2014 | 09:58 AM
#149
Line Holder
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Their deal for the 900s was clearly a concessionary deal in order to take aircraft from eagle. Whether or not that was the reality of the situation is a separate debate. But the fact is they were voting yes to take concessions to take aircraft from Eagle.
People can try to apologize for it all they like on here. The simple fact is the vote was to knowingly take eagle airplanes.
People can try to apologize for it all they like on here. The simple fact is the vote was to knowingly take eagle airplanes.
09-06-2014 | 10:22 AM
#150
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
From: B777 Capt
I am very familiar with the cost+ contracts...Why did the XJT MEC just refer to FFD instead of cost+? Why did the UA MEC invite FFD carriers versus COST+? It is because FFD is an acceptable substitution term. Your company is not receiving incentives not because mainline cancels your flights, but because you have schedules built with no FAR117 flexibility, poor maintenance reliability and crews scattered from hub to hub with no reserves for irregular operations. Those are issues with your company making promises to operate X number of flights but being unable to comply.
Do you make your wife call you "captain"? I suspect all of your mail is addressed to "captain" also. I have known plenty of guys like you over the years. The pilots that define themselves by their job are usually the most miserable people to fly with. I have seen it from every seat over the years, captain.....
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
