Right! Except MP said the other day that we were going to have to give up those rates to get larger aircraft on campus... 😊

Whatever we give up in this new contract, we are NEVER getting back.

It is not our responsibility to take a pay cut for the survival of this company (who we know can still turn a profit in this industry).

Very true. I'm no advocate for giving up anything but on the other hand, we can wager, stand tall while surrounded by others who have bent over and watch the flying go to everyone else while we sweat stupid photoshopped pictures while hoping the claws of a major pick us up out of the little AWAC circus box. AA will continue use us to pick up slack until they can cover it for cheaper. We have no right to complain then.

I agree !!! We cannot let this BS of "get rid of this" in order to get "bigger planes ". That's a load of crap! Look what happened at Eagle! AA said they weren't getting the 170s and now look what they are advertising for pilots to fly when they go there. Sure they lost flying to PSA but guess who can't staff that flying and how many pilots are going to PSA. Things over there has stagnated so much and with a subpar contract. The fact is that it is still cheaper for any contract operator to fly the 900/170s than if flown by mainline. I can vote on the next TA and it will be a no unless there are improvements like mentioned above and our 70+ seat scale is still there.

You might want to take another look at your contract. You currently don't have a 70+ seat scale, you have a BAE-146 scale.

Incorrect. Totally incorrect but thanks for posting anyway. Section 3.1 includes 70 seat pay scales. I'm looking at it right this minute.

You are correct, it does include 70 seat, not 70+ seat (read greater than 70) unless they are going to reconfigure the firefighting 146's back into a passenger airplane.

Section 3.1 pay scales are titled CL-65, 51-70 seat jet, and BAe-146.

If anyone thinks they are going to sit back and happily pay out 146 rates for a 900, have some more kool-aid.

See that's the problem with this forum...wait no...with some of the people in this forum. You know damn well the dude meant 70 seat rates but someone always has to say "ooohhh I got this guy stone cold" and respond with some crap that turns the conversation sideways. The dude is speaking on 70 seat rates. ...at least that's how I read it. The + didn't even make sense so I Ignored it instead of having a fit.

Except the whole conversation started with a photoshopped picture of a -900 which has more than 70 seats. Maybe go back and reread the chain of events.

I assumed 70+ also because the 900 seats 76 in PSA/Americans configuration. Unless we get 700s but I haven't heard any rumors on that front.

Either way the company would want to renegotiate those rates.