Block or better?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Buddy, the only reason you guys are all over MIA is cause Envoy held the line as much as they could.... The pilot group was offered 175s in MIA and we said no...the pilot group got tired of all you guys saying "we hot your back" and see how LAX, SJU, MIA close and see DFW & ORD be cannabilezed by bottom feeders...

Is that the only type of soft pay you have? I heard you guys don't have junior manning which is probably good.

Deadheading also counts toward credit.

RAH voted down a garbage TA to "hold the line" in case you forgot. You also lost your right to legitimately call anyone a bottom feeder when you voted yes.

I would not consider block or better soft pay.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Deadhead pay is 75% of scheduled block. Scheduled being the operative word. We dead head all over creation and back. If it's a company aircraft, we've been getting away with getting 75% of actual block due to some software issues. We regularly DH on other carriers and only get pay based on scheduled block regardless of how long the flight actually takes. I've spent over two hours in the back of a CRJ in the penalty box in ORD completely unpaid because the scheduled block was only 1 hour. So, 45 minutes of pay for 3.5 hours in the back of a CRJ. To add a little salt to the wound, I was removed from my turn out of ORD because of how late we arrived at the gate. No pay protection for that plus a 3+ hour sit before flying off to my reduced rest overnight. This was well before part 117 was even a dream.

RAH new contract?
 

Just wanted to add that RAH's CPA was signed with pre-merger, post-bankruptcy AA. I consider us to be separate from the ensuing shakedown between AA and all the post-merger wholly owned carriers.

You're preaching to the choir, dude. I was just adding some input to a question someone asked about how credit can be higher than block. I'm very well aware of how rah pays deadheads and agree that it sucks.

You do realize that the 175s you turned down the first time were offered to us again, and BB chose not to bid because he knew we couldn't staff them, he even admitted as much in a corporate comm. last summer. We couldn't staff them because WE voted NO. (Or as Bedford sees it we voted down a pay raise). They were subsequently re offered to you in a lesser TA that YOU voted YES on. Don't blame RAH for MIA, we held the line. Had we voted yes, you likely would have never seen that second vote, and MIA wouldn't have been the only casualty. We are not your enemy! The other wholly owneds, well that's for you to decide if they screwed you over.....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk