Working my way through the MEC powerpoints/audio, reading the forums, and giving it a lot of thought. Disappointed by the lack of reserve changes, but two issues worth mentioning here from my point of view. First, giving up 1000L first day show was a showstopper if that was in fact a company must have to negotiate any further. Second, while the average internet forum poster is not always a great predictor of the pilot group historically, the huge lack of concern with reserve contract issues (they picked to be in reserve!) surprised me and combined with the moronic last contract inclusion of FSB (they will never use it!) leaves me very skeptical that reserve issues will be dealt with in the next contract whether we approve this TA or not. So since i do not commute, fly a NB, was not a furloughee, never expected a 100 seat CA to get paid more than WB fo at this airline, and am confident about Delta leapfrogging our pay, it comes down to respectable real cash right now vs confidence in a new MEC and hopefully new NC's ability to fix the numerous details of this contract that really need attention.

Undecided, but i feel so good.

 

Have you considered the affects of the CS100 rates being so much lower than the A319 and 737-500? They will become replacement aircraft and next thing you know, you will have a B-scale airline within an airline.

 

They've always had this ability. Nothing we can do to stop it.

 

BS...we don't currently have a rate for the CS100. If this TA gets approved....we will have a rate. And it is too low.

 

Totally bogus argument. Go read section 3-J of the UPA. It's on page 38.

 

3-J-1-c The negotiations shall attempt to find a pay rate and Equipment banding that is consistent with the pay rates and Equipment banding of existing Equipment types. If such negotiations do not result in agreement within 100 days from the date this procedure is invoked, either party may submit the dispute to final and binding interest arbitration.


How is it bogus? If you agree to the rate in this TA then 3-J-1-c is not used. How do you justify the CS100 paying $50 an hour less then the CS300 or A319?

 

You've got to read the whole section. About binding arbitration and this...

3-J-2 Nothing set forth herein shall prevent the Company from introducing a new aircraft type into revenue service before agreement is reached over its pay rate and Equipment band, provided that the pay rates assigned to the new aircraft type are not less than the minimum rates provided in Section 3-A-1.

Take a look at the E195 rates on the UPA. the company could buy the CS100 and have a good argument in front of arbitration to pay LESS than the TA! And bring it into service at less than that if need be.

Not that any of this matters. A 100 seater is not gonna replace the 737/320. The economics are not there.

 

So the CS100 is more similar to the E195 than it is the CS300? Are the similarities based strictly on the number of seats or does it also consider range, payload, etc. CS100 is more like a bus if you ask me.

 

Yep, i agree with you that that number should be higher but never expected it to be same as 700/319, but it is higher than the current WB FO rate and the 190, 195, and CS100 are the same, unlike the horrible 190/195 differential in the current contract. BUT, and i believe this is very important to the profession, this gets those airframes, jobs, and seats on our property.

What i am looking for is some confidence that CA Insler or whoever is part of our next leadership group can deliver improvements without huge losses in real dollars from substandard retro.

 

Merry Christmas, Sled. I wasn't trying to pick a fight...just educating myself by thinking out loud. I'm shocked I didn't get a short call or FSB today or tomorrow. I'm going to imbibe now...Happy Festivus.