Letter to Council 5 Reps
12-07-2015, 02:15 PM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
Originally Posted by gettinbumped
I think we agree they want FRMS. But I'm sure that there is a price they are willing to pay for it and a price they aren't. They have operated without it since the inception of FAR 117 (minus 1 month). Would they come back if it were rejected? Maybe. "But that's a big gamble with a $30 million plane, lieutenant". Sorry, my inner Top Gun got the best of me 
12-07-2015, 02:21 PM
#53
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Originally Posted by JoePatroni
The company will NOT offer money to extend, instead, they will reassign crews under the "untriggered reassignment" section. Instead of paying five hours each to four guys going to BOM, they will send them to TLV (while paying them for BOM) and make the TLV crew go to BOM for 225% pay. That means that EACH pilot previously scheduled to go to TLV (22:45) now is making 69:45 for working the same days. In this scenario the company is paying 168 extra hours instead of 20, THAT'S why they want to talk.
12-07-2015, 02:27 PM
#54
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Originally Posted by SpecialTracking
They wanted it enough to initiate these these discussions. They would scrap their ULR flying plans after failing at the first bite of the apple? Wait, they've already failed once when the mec said no back in the spring.
"
Jay, this time of senior leadership change is a unique opportunity for us. We hope you and the leadership of the Association agree. We look forward to discussing the opportunity presented to usher in a new era and relationship between the Company and our pilots.
"
12-07-2015, 02:32 PM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 1,825
Originally Posted by gettinbumped
You would certainly no better than me, as I don't fly these ULH flights. As far as I know the company CAN offer the $$ to extend. Why they would choose not to and pay the extra 168 hours, I'll never know. Seems dumb to me!!
12-07-2015, 03:15 PM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Position: Captain
Posts: 1,561
something to think about it:
Each wide body generates 1million per RT flights, they want to add another 15 flights that are ultra long and will take 30 wide body aircraft do do those on a RT basis.
8 currently used for 4 routes that duty and far 117 is an issue,,Syd,Mlb, bom, Delhi ....add New Zealand tlv cendu from SFO and some others .....15 flights 15 million per pair x365 days and divide that by 3 since most of them are 3 day tip or 4 day double augmented that's a lot of dough ...I say about 450 million every year additional income and remember the aircraft are coming soon ,,,,,,
The AIP rumor has it, 300 million additional payrol per year if the extension is approved.
Company wins again
But hey that's good news , PF will be huge some say and others say let's wait ..
I say let's see the AIP and then decide as a group
Word is out 250 wide body aircraft by 2020.... Today there are 171
Each wide body generates 1million per RT flights, they want to add another 15 flights that are ultra long and will take 30 wide body aircraft do do those on a RT basis.
8 currently used for 4 routes that duty and far 117 is an issue,,Syd,Mlb, bom, Delhi ....add New Zealand tlv cendu from SFO and some others .....15 flights 15 million per pair x365 days and divide that by 3 since most of them are 3 day tip or 4 day double augmented that's a lot of dough ...I say about 450 million every year additional income and remember the aircraft are coming soon ,,,,,,
The AIP rumor has it, 300 million additional payrol per year if the extension is approved.
Company wins again
But hey that's good news , PF will be huge some say and others say let's wait ..
I say let's see the AIP and then decide as a group
Word is out 250 wide body aircraft by 2020.... Today there are 171
12-07-2015, 03:53 PM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
Originally Posted by Sniper66
something to think about it:
Each wide body generates 1million per RT flights, they want to add another 15 flights that are ultra long and will take 30 wide body aircraft do do those on a RT basis.
8 currently used for 4 routes that duty and far 117 is an issue,,Syd,Mlb, bom, Delhi ....add New Zealand tlv cendu from SFO and some others .....15 flights 15 million per pair x365 days and divide that by 3 since most of them are 3 day tip or 4 day double augmented that's a lot of dough ...I say about 450 million every year additional income and remember the aircraft are coming soon ,,,,,,
The AIP rumor has it, 300 million additional payrol per year if the extension is approved.
Company wins again
But hey that's good news , PF will be huge some say and others say let's wait ..
I say let's see the AIP and then decide as a group
Word is out 250 wide body aircraft by 2020.... Today there are 171
Each wide body generates 1million per RT flights, they want to add another 15 flights that are ultra long and will take 30 wide body aircraft do do those on a RT basis.
8 currently used for 4 routes that duty and far 117 is an issue,,Syd,Mlb, bom, Delhi ....add New Zealand tlv cendu from SFO and some others .....15 flights 15 million per pair x365 days and divide that by 3 since most of them are 3 day tip or 4 day double augmented that's a lot of dough ...I say about 450 million every year additional income and remember the aircraft are coming soon ,,,,,,
The AIP rumor has it, 300 million additional payrol per year if the extension is approved.
Company wins again
But hey that's good news , PF will be huge some say and others say let's wait ..
I say let's see the AIP and then decide as a group
Word is out 250 wide body aircraft by 2020.... Today there are 171
12-07-2015, 04:23 PM
#58
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
Originally Posted by Sniper66
something to think about it:
Each wide body generates 1million per RT flights, they want to add another 15 flights that are ultra long and will take 30 wide body aircraft do do those on a RT basis.
8 currently used for 4 routes that duty and far 117 is an issue,,Syd,Mlb, bom, Delhi ....add New Zealand tlv cendu from SFO and some others .....15 flights 15 million per pair x365 days and divide that by 3 since most of them are 3 day tip or 4 day double augmented that's a lot of dough ...I say about 450 million every year additional income and remember the aircraft are coming soon ,,,,,,
The AIP rumor has it, 300 million additional payrol per year if the extension is approved.
Company wins again
But hey that's good news , PF will be huge some say and others say let's wait ..
I say let's see the AIP and then decide as a group
Word is out 250 wide body aircraft by 2020.... Today there are 171
Each wide body generates 1million per RT flights, they want to add another 15 flights that are ultra long and will take 30 wide body aircraft do do those on a RT basis.
8 currently used for 4 routes that duty and far 117 is an issue,,Syd,Mlb, bom, Delhi ....add New Zealand tlv cendu from SFO and some others .....15 flights 15 million per pair x365 days and divide that by 3 since most of them are 3 day tip or 4 day double augmented that's a lot of dough ...I say about 450 million every year additional income and remember the aircraft are coming soon ,,,,,,
The AIP rumor has it, 300 million additional payrol per year if the extension is approved.
Company wins again
But hey that's good news , PF will be huge some say and others say let's wait ..
I say let's see the AIP and then decide as a group
Word is out 250 wide body aircraft by 2020.... Today there are 171
The logic employed that we need to use our leverage more - I just don't get it. Both the company and the pilots want growth in ULH flying. But some of the pilots want to make it difficult for the company to do this?
If we approve the AIP and vote it in, we get some good stuff. it makes it easier for the company to expand international flying. We get more pilots flying lucrative routes. It sure seems like we are getting something extra, for something that benefits us. I don't see how we lose if we accept the AIP.
Please, someone explain why this AIP is a bad thing.
12-07-2015, 04:29 PM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: 737 capt
Posts: 335
Originally Posted by Probe
I don't understand your point. A 50% increase in wide-bodies is a bad thing, and we need to stop it by rejecting the AIP?
The logic employed that we need to use our leverage more - I just don't get it. Both the company and the pilots want growth in ULH flying. But some of the pilots want to make it difficult for the company to do this?
If we approve the AIP and vote it in, we get some good stuff. it makes it easier for the company to expand international flying. We get more pilots flying lucrative routes. It sure seems like we are getting something extra, for something that benefits us. I don't see how we lose if we accept the AIP.
Please, someone explain why this AIP is a bad thing.
The logic employed that we need to use our leverage more - I just don't get it. Both the company and the pilots want growth in ULH flying. But some of the pilots want to make it difficult for the company to do this?
If we approve the AIP and vote it in, we get some good stuff. it makes it easier for the company to expand international flying. We get more pilots flying lucrative routes. It sure seems like we are getting something extra, for something that benefits us. I don't see how we lose if we accept the AIP.
Please, someone explain why this AIP is a bad thing.
12-07-2015, 04:59 PM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Position: The GF of FUPM
Posts: 3,073
Originally Posted by Probe
.... A 50% increase in wide-bodies is a bad thing, and we need to stop it by rejecting the AIP?
No one has ever said this. Dumbing it down to that weakens your argument. No one wants to stop progress or growth. Some simply think that what they want from us is worth more than what they are offering. Especially when we are so close to Sect 6. Especially considering they really want is a favor and for us to suck up two more years of a substandard contract after all we've been denied in THIS one. We're already cheaper than DAL. If you were Oscar, wouldn't you do all you could to lock that advantage in and to operate as cheaply as possible?
The logic employed that we need to use our leverage more - I just don't get it.
We understand that.
Both the company and the pilots want growth in ULH flying. But some of the pilots want to make it difficult for the company to do this?
No one has ever said this. Dumbing it down to that weakens your argument. No one wants to stop progress or growth. Some simply think that what they want from us is worth more than what they are offering. Especially when we are so close to Sect 6. Especially considering they really want is a favor and for us to suck up two more years of a substandard contract after all we've been denied in THIS one. We're already cheaper than DAL. If you were Oscar, wouldn't you do all you could to lock that advantage in and to operate as cheaply as possible?
The logic employed that we need to use our leverage more - I just don't get it.
We understand that.
Both the company and the pilots want growth in ULH flying. But some of the pilots want to make it difficult for the company to do this?
Might I politely suggest that you read some of the threads on the other forum? There are a few guys there who do an excellent job of highlighting some of the economic reasons why our cooperation is worth more than the purported details of this agreement.
Happy Holidays.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
