One Eagle pilot's prespective.
03-19-2014, 12:04 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2011
Posts: 996
There should be no such thing as a 10 year agreement. Add 10 years on to another maybe 5 years to negotiate and you're looking at 15 years under this crap sandwich. The shortage will become more apparent 2018-2020 and you guys will be locked into this thing with no leverage. If you guys are accepting pay freezes for a certain amount of years that's a pay cut with inflation. Don't take less money to fly bigger planes. If you guys vote yes the only hope you have is that it's so bad you can't find enough pilots and it forces them to do something.
03-19-2014, 12:14 PM
#33
Where's my Mai Tai?
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: fins to the left, fins to the right
Posts: 1,723
Originally Posted by Skyvector
I'm not attacking the messenger and Rich is a good guy.
I'm just pointing out that it is easier to take such a stance when you have nothing to lose. The content of this message aside he never spoke up before in the past like this. It's just interesting timing that he does now with one foot out the door.
I'm just pointing out that it is easier to take such a stance when you have nothing to lose. The content of this message aside he never spoke up before in the past like this. It's just interesting timing that he does now with one foot out the door.
03-19-2014, 12:25 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 243
Rich was in favor of the bankruptcy TA. He still stands by the decision. However, when when Paker & company made initial inquiries in July 2012, Rich was against anymore concessions. He has always been against any post bankruptcy concessions.
03-19-2014, 12:42 PM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 854
Originally Posted by Skyvector
I'm not attacking the messenger and Rich is a good guy.
I'm just pointing out that it is easier to take such a stance when you have nothing to lose. The content of this message aside he never spoke up before in the past like this. It's just interesting timing that he does now with one foot out the door.
I'm just pointing out that it is easier to take such a stance when you have nothing to lose. The content of this message aside he never spoke up before in the past like this. It's just interesting timing that he does now with one foot out the door.
"The content of this message aside..." Why should anyone put the content of the message aside? The content is what matters!
Does it help you at all that many of us who are defending him do not have a foot out the door? That many of us, myself included, have a mortgage/kids/bills/etc. and are willing to stand up anyway? I see no evidence that RK would not be writing this if he did not happen to be on a flowthrough list that he cannot control the timing of. You certainly have not provided any evidence of that.
03-19-2014, 12:48 PM
#37
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 787
Originally Posted by ORDinary
If the company had threatened us like this when he wasn't already on a flowthrough list, perhaps then he would have taken a stand then. I don't think his timing is interesting at all. Coincidental, sure.
"The content of this message aside..." Why should anyone put the content of the message aside? The content is what matters!
Does it help you at all that many of us who are defending him do not have a foot out the door? That many of us, myself included, have a mortgage/kids/bills/etc. and are willing to stand up anyway? I see no evidence that RK would not be writing this if he did not happen to be on a flowthrough list that he cannot control the timing of. You certainly have not provided any evidence of that.
"The content of this message aside..." Why should anyone put the content of the message aside? The content is what matters!
Does it help you at all that many of us who are defending him do not have a foot out the door? That many of us, myself included, have a mortgage/kids/bills/etc. and are willing to stand up anyway? I see no evidence that RK would not be writing this if he did not happen to be on a flowthrough list that he cannot control the timing of. You certainly have not provided any evidence of that.
We all want what is best for our airline. Let's not lose sight of that.
03-19-2014, 02:30 PM
#38
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 27
I think you guys are missing the point if you're making this about me.
I voted yes to the BK TA because the threat of imposed work rules and no contract was real. It is a simple matter for a BK judge to vaporize our contract. It was the lesser of two evils.
Now we are out of BK and the only way we are giving concessions is if WE choose to do it. Therefore I am a no voter in this situation.
My choice to leave Eagle was very tough. As a 16 year check airman I have a pretty great deal going. I won't make the same money until I upgrade at AA. I would have stayed if Eagle had AAG not chosen this course.
The point is that we finally have the leverage to say no and make it stick. I thought I would share what I learned in Washington to show the side of things that management doesn't want you to see.
My hope is that we call their bluff and we get some substantial improvements - something we can vote yes to.
Rich
I voted yes to the BK TA because the threat of imposed work rules and no contract was real. It is a simple matter for a BK judge to vaporize our contract. It was the lesser of two evils.
Now we are out of BK and the only way we are giving concessions is if WE choose to do it. Therefore I am a no voter in this situation.
My choice to leave Eagle was very tough. As a 16 year check airman I have a pretty great deal going. I won't make the same money until I upgrade at AA. I would have stayed if Eagle had AAG not chosen this course.
The point is that we finally have the leverage to say no and make it stick. I thought I would share what I learned in Washington to show the side of things that management doesn't want you to see.
My hope is that we call their bluff and we get some substantial improvements - something we can vote yes to.
Rich
03-19-2014, 02:42 PM
#39
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 37
Very well written. Unfortunately, I believe it will take people leaving the profession en masse for anybody to make real changes.
For example, I was eating dinner with several non-aviation family members, and all were shocked at the pay. They were shocked that if I changed airlines, I would start at bottom pay. However, whe asked if they would pay $600 round trip to fly from LGA-MCO, they said "oh, god no!". My answer to them was that they really do not care that much, then.
I thought about that afterwards and realized that I was wrong in thinking that way. With the profits that the airlines are making, starting pay for a regional FO could be 80-100k per year and the airlines would still be turning a profit.
The airlines are banking record amounts because the old model of "always be expanding market share" has been abandoned. In other words, I feel that the base problem is that the airlines changed their business models and kept the same old pay scheme.
Personally, I am getting weary of the game. I am seriously considering going back and earning my PhD in a non-aviation field, even though I will be broke and 52 years old when I earn said degree.
How can anyone say things are going well in this country? Anyway... Time to heave a huge sigh and put the monkey suit back on, wondering if this week will be the last straw.
For example, I was eating dinner with several non-aviation family members, and all were shocked at the pay. They were shocked that if I changed airlines, I would start at bottom pay. However, whe asked if they would pay $600 round trip to fly from LGA-MCO, they said "oh, god no!". My answer to them was that they really do not care that much, then.
I thought about that afterwards and realized that I was wrong in thinking that way. With the profits that the airlines are making, starting pay for a regional FO could be 80-100k per year and the airlines would still be turning a profit.
The airlines are banking record amounts because the old model of "always be expanding market share" has been abandoned. In other words, I feel that the base problem is that the airlines changed their business models and kept the same old pay scheme.
Personally, I am getting weary of the game. I am seriously considering going back and earning my PhD in a non-aviation field, even though I will be broke and 52 years old when I earn said degree.
How can anyone say things are going well in this country? Anyway... Time to heave a huge sigh and put the monkey suit back on, wondering if this week will be the last straw.
03-19-2014, 03:30 PM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: ERJ, CA
Posts: 718
Originally Posted by rlkrutenat
I think you guys are missing the point if you're making this about me.
I voted yes to the BK TA because the threat of imposed work rules and no contract was real. It is a simple matter for a BK judge to vaporize our contract. It was the lesser of two evils.
Now we are out of BK and the only way we are giving concessions is if WE choose to do it. Therefore I am a no voter in this situation.
My choice to leave Eagle was very tough. As a 16 year check airman I have a pretty great deal going. I won't make the same money until I upgrade at AA. I would have stayed if Eagle had AAG not chosen this course.
The point is that we finally have the leverage to say no and make it stick. I thought I would share what I learned in Washington to show the side of things that management doesn't want you to see.
My hope is that we call their bluff and we get some substantial improvements - something we can vote yes to.
Rich
I voted yes to the BK TA because the threat of imposed work rules and no contract was real. It is a simple matter for a BK judge to vaporize our contract. It was the lesser of two evils.
Now we are out of BK and the only way we are giving concessions is if WE choose to do it. Therefore I am a no voter in this situation.
My choice to leave Eagle was very tough. As a 16 year check airman I have a pretty great deal going. I won't make the same money until I upgrade at AA. I would have stayed if Eagle had AAG not chosen this course.
The point is that we finally have the leverage to say no and make it stick. I thought I would share what I learned in Washington to show the side of things that management doesn't want you to see.
My hope is that we call their bluff and we get some substantial improvements - something we can vote yes to.
Rich
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
