Originally Posted by NedsKid

PBS is a concession. Every airline that has PBS had it forced on them in bankruptcy. I think that just about covers PBS.



You're advocating for taking a pay cut every year. If my $ buys me less as a 12 year CA than it did the first year I upgraded, that's a pay cut, and not a contract I’m going to advocate for.

High hourly rates are designed by management to distract short-sighted pilots from the big picture. If you want to brag about a # on a forum in some machismo ‘unit measuring contest’, go for the hourly rate. That’s what’s going on it this thread. There's a reason AA is willing to offer industry leading hourly rates to their pilots (in a cost neutral contract, BTW) - and it ain't because they want their pilots to cost more than the competition.

We should be focused on how much $ ends up in our pocket at the end of the day, not the hourly rate.

• UPS has an 81 hour min guarantee. That's a 12% increase right there compared to Spirit’s 72 hour guarantee, with no change in the hourly rate.
• Southwest has a 5:15 min day (the rough equivalent of when you convert their 6.5 'trips for pay' to hourly rates). That's a 17% increase over Spirit's 4.5 hour min duty period, again, with no change in the hourly rate.

It may sound better on this forum to say “Spirit’s top CA rate is $239/hr, and 2nd year FO is $93/hr” than to say “Spirit’s top CA rate is $185/hr, and 2nd year FO is $72/hr”, but those #’s are the exact same with the proper work rules at the lower rate (UPS and Southwest).

Oh, and PBS is a concession.

Credit to Joey for the new signature

Originally Posted by NedsKid

PBS is a concession. Every airline that has PBS had it forced on them in bankruptcy. I think that just about covers PBS.



You're advocating for taking a pay cut every year. If my $ buys me less as a 12 year CA than it did the first year I upgraded, that's a pay cut, and not a contract I’m going to advocate for.

High hourly rates are designed by management to distract short-sighted pilots from the big picture. If you want to brag about a # on a forum in some machismo ‘unit measuring contest’, go for the hourly rate. That’s what’s going on it this thread. There's a reason AA is willing to offer industry leading hourly rates to their pilots (in a cost neutral contract, BTW) - and it ain't because they want their pilots to cost more than the competition.

We should be focused on how much $ ends up in our pocket at the end of the day, not the hourly rate.

• UPS has an 81 hour min guarantee. That's a 12% increase right there compared to Spirit’s 72 hour guarantee, with no change in the hourly rate.
• Southwest has a 5:15 min day (the rough equivalent of when you convert their 6.5 'trips for pay' to hourly rates). That's a 17% increase over Spirit's 4.5 hour min duty period, again, with no change in the hourly rate.

It may sound better on this forum to say “Spirit’s top CA rate is $239/hr, and 2nd year FO is $93/hr” than to say “Spirit’s top CA rate is $185/hr, and 2nd year FO is $72/hr”, but those #’s are the exact same with the proper work rules at the lower rate (UPS and Southwest).

Oh, and PBS is a concession.

Credit to Joey for the new signature

Originally Posted by Lobaeux

Someone please refresh my memory. Bid packet says PC dates have to be submitted by 1600 on bid award date, but award time is at 1800.
Is that normal? I'm just submitting a PC date in the blind?

Originally Posted by Green Giant

This might be off topic, but I understand that we are going to vote on the I-Pad TA real soon. This will save the company money and as such this is leverage. This language should be written into our new contract not some TA before the contract. I say no TA ratification until we can vote on a new contract. That would give the company one more reason to finish the new contract in a timely manner. Just my thoughts.

Originally Posted by The Juice

I would say that big item issues, such as 30/7 relief, which the company wants, is something worth holding onto for negotiations.

As far as this TA, lets look at it then decide if this is worth voting in or out.

I for one, will assume its a "no" vote because I cant imagine a TA that would provide me the same pay that I currently get with contract language. So if crap is presented in this TA, it should be voted down and we can continue bidding for training for however many years to come, until a new contract is achieved.

I've done electronic recurrent ground, at my last airline, completely outside of a classroom and it is horrible! You will be craving Bruce's classroom and jokes when you are having to actually do the lessons and not "graded to 100"