View Poll Results: Will the RAH TA pass?
YES it will pass with >60% in favor
57
55.88%
Yes it will pass marginally (51% in favor)
22
21.57%
No it will not pass marginally (45% in favor)
11
10.78%
NO it will be struck down with <40% in favor
12
11.76%
Voters: 102. You may not vote on this poll
RAH: Is the vote going to pass?
10-27-2015 | 11:43 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,599
Likes: 206
From: 787
10-27-2015 | 12:23 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
But there are orders for them. Seems short sighted to not have payrates for something that the company has committed to. If they aren't going to be on property company could have put whatever payrates they wanted on paper. As it stands it's set up to be decided by arbitration. How did that work out for the Q400 as a jet, or the other time it wasn't a jet, or the time the seat in the 190 wasn't actually a seat? See what I'm getting at?
10-27-2015 | 12:42 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,599
Likes: 206
From: 787
But there are orders for them. Seems short sighted to not have payrates for something that the company has committed to. If they aren't going to be on property company could have put whatever payrates they wanted on paper. As it stands it's set up to be decided by arbitration. How did that work out for the Q400 as a jet, or the other time it wasn't a jet, or the time the seat in the 190 wasn't actually a seat? See what I'm getting at?
10-27-2015 | 12:59 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
But there are orders for them. Seems short sighted to not have payrates for something that the company has committed to. If they aren't going to be on property company could have put whatever payrates they wanted on paper. As it stands it's set up to be decided by arbitration. How did that work out for the Q400 as a jet, or the other time it wasn't a jet, or the time the seat in the 190 wasn't actually a seat? See what I'm getting at?
That's a valid point but realistically we will never fly those. If we do start flying them we have bigger problems in the industry than whether we have a current rate for them or not. Also you'll never find a perfect contract. If you vote no for every minor issue you find you'd never vote yes. You have to weigh the pros and cons. There are certainly cons in this, but the pros outweighed the cons.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
10-27-2015 | 01:01 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 5,280
Likes: 101
What happened on the UAL mid term ESOP vote in the 90's?
Pilots have crappy memories, as well proven to be greedy.
"Scope scope scope!!!!!!! Oh, look at that money they're offering!!!!!"
10-27-2015 | 01:07 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Ultimately there is no reason for a mainline carrier to want a 130 seat C Series aircraft in the current market. I could understand the 100 seat version but not the 130.
10-27-2015 | 01:37 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
And E.S. will commute to the furthest outstation possible because God knows he won't get hired anywhere else.
10-27-2015 | 01:50 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 5,280
Likes: 101
For sure. Good points. All you had to do was fool a large portion of "Loon" ies and boom...you have a ratified TA. They'll be flying 130 people around for $7 more than the 190 rates.
And E.S. will commute to the furthest outstation possible because God knows he won't get hired anywhere else.
And E.S. will commute to the furthest outstation possible because God knows he won't get hired anywhere else.
DESPITE being told that scope ISN'T one of the items....
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
