Years ago, ATI used a game sim that was modeled after a DC-9. Full panel with yoke, rudder pedals (not that they were needed...), throttles, everything but the actual box with hydraulics and simulated windows. So if that device is still in use, then it's a good flying skills evaluation tool, and not a stretch to say "I used a DC-9 sim during my interview". I thought the old actual DC-9 sim in ILN was dismantled or at least removed a while back.

Maybe I missed something here. Why would the MEC allow ATI to pay 2nd year pay to a new hire without signing a new complete CBA?

A new CBA takes time. And it's in the works. But an opportunity lost? Perhaps, through a time-consuming LoA. The MEC had an immediate problem (addressing something not addressed by the CBA as ratified and published), and fixed it.

The rest will come.

There were no changes to section 19a pay rates post merger. The fact it was omitted was a human error. If it were ever challenged I'm sure the ruling would have reverted to the pre merger document.

The company had the choice of offering the pre merger rate or higher. They chose 2nd year to attract pilots. Then it's blended to be on payscale by year three. The above is according to JV in person. The question was put forth in recurrent.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No better yet, why not bump up year 5 and below. That way the guys that were put in the street get a little something as they return.

More to your question, I tried looking up rulings on the above. I found one involving the UAW where GM paid more to a certain plant. The cba was ruled as a minimum and the company could indeed pay more. (1986)

There were two DC9 sims.

The old Level-B sim was in the first sim bay (closest to 22R/4L). That one has been dismantled. Very much like the DC8 sim in CVG.

In the early 2000s ABX built a brand new DC9 sim that is in the last sim bay (closest to the parking lot). Very nice sim. Visuals are much better than those on the 767 sim. Since ABX parked the DC9s, January 2009, they've used this sim to provide training to outside DC9 operators.

Sounds like you have this locked down, CTR. So you're going to run for MEC Chairman on the next cycle?

I guess my point is, why not hold the company hostage for a new, complete CBA or the company gets no new hire pilots it needs. IMHO, it's all about leverage. I realize I am an outsider, just trying to see the whole picture.

Maybe I could deal under the table or fly on buy back days or something...because that's the only way I could put more on my plate right now. Then I could quit one of my other two jobs.

"It's complicated". There's holding hostage, and there's slitting one's own throat. Simple answer is that we don't have enough pilots to do the work we have now. On top of that, we are expanding with new aircraft, and we need newbies in training now. Can't wait for a new CBA if we're to keep the aircraft that we do get in the short term. I would sure like to have seen an across-the-board pay raise, and as CTR said, there's precedence for increasing pay, but this one was done to fix absence of language (history notwithstanding), and help attract new hires at the same time. As I said, the rest will come.

Or you could be part of the solution! As MEC, you won't have time to work two other jobs, nor will you have to with the pay increases you'll get for us!