Bailing for greener pastures?
10-18-2016, 02:51 PM
#61
New Hire
Joined APC: Apr 2012
Posts: 3
I'm 32 on 5th year pay, starting 6th year in a couple months and I think I would leave for DL/UA/AA. On the other hand no matter how good the movement looks at the top 3, we'd be furlough fodder there. The good thing about being a senior FO here is at least there is some cushion in case things start to tank.
It's a tougher call once you hit half way up+ the pay band (6th year or higher). But if you're a first year guy at VX (unless you're from the PNW) it makes sense to bail to the 3 legacies. Your seniority/longevity here isn't worth anything to deem staying.
It's a tougher call once you hit half way up+ the pay band (6th year or higher). But if you're a first year guy at VX (unless you're from the PNW) it makes sense to bail to the 3 legacies. Your seniority/longevity here isn't worth anything to deem staying.
Alaska is a legacy airline, unlike Virgin, as you know. I think this should be distinguished because the pilots that selected Alaska chose Alaska because it has shown to be a strong airline for 84 years. Your statement would be understood better by deciphering "the big three" vs a "legacy." Alaska pilots are legacy pilots. And soon, Virgin pilots will be as well solely by default/acquisition. If Virgin pilots are not fully satisfied with their present position, they should jump to one of the big three. Why did you go to virgin in the first place?
10-18-2016, 03:25 PM
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Position: fatigued
Posts: 1,402
10-20-2016, 02:39 AM
#65
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Posts: 128
Many guys that have been here a little while...say, middle of the Captain list and up, don't see how our Scope...or really lack of Scope effects them. I was told by a union rep while voicing my concerns over Scope 1. E-mails from guys upset about RJ's going to Skywest were a fraction of the emails from guys upset that VSA changed under 117. 2. He personally didn't care about SCOPE because he came to AS to fly 737's not RJs.
When most people talk about Scope they are talking about nibbling away at the bottom flying. This is because most scope issues seen are in the context of United or AA or Delta who all have "seat number" protection.
Because Alaska is in the unique (if not unique, then definitely rare amongst majors)position of not having any seat number language (all flying over XX seats go to mainline), we need to also be concerned about getting outsourced on the top also. Is it really so hard to envision Alaska management ordering 20 787's and then contracting ANA or Omni to fly them?
Amazon has "airplanes", it's in the media as Amazon having airplanes, but yet there is no such thing as an "Amazon pilot". It could be the same here.
Amongst the junior pilots, I think the threat of the RJ's is clear. However, we have to change the language that we use when talking about it to make vivid, the threat that we face from above and below.
If right now AS decided to get wide-bodies, or if we decided to play hardball on a contract, I don't think this management would hesitate to outsource the flying.
Just-saying.
When most people talk about Scope they are talking about nibbling away at the bottom flying. This is because most scope issues seen are in the context of United or AA or Delta who all have "seat number" protection.
Because Alaska is in the unique (if not unique, then definitely rare amongst majors)position of not having any seat number language (all flying over XX seats go to mainline), we need to also be concerned about getting outsourced on the top also. Is it really so hard to envision Alaska management ordering 20 787's and then contracting ANA or Omni to fly them?
Amazon has "airplanes", it's in the media as Amazon having airplanes, but yet there is no such thing as an "Amazon pilot". It could be the same here.
Amongst the junior pilots, I think the threat of the RJ's is clear. However, we have to change the language that we use when talking about it to make vivid, the threat that we face from above and below.
If right now AS decided to get wide-bodies, or if we decided to play hardball on a contract, I don't think this management would hesitate to outsource the flying.
Just-saying.
10-20-2016, 03:37 AM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Posts: 128
Fine, I'll take a stab at it.
All pay = 80 hours at the middle rate for time period of position
AS career -
1-10 737 FO: ($124)$119,040 * 10 = $1,190,400
11-30 737 CA: ($213)$204,480 * 20 = $4,089,600
Company 401k contribution (13.5%)= $712,800
Total career earnings = $5,992,800
DL career -
1-5 737 FO: ($126) $120,960 * 5 = $604,800
6-10 767 FO: ($147) $141,120 * 5 = $705,600
11-20 737 CA: ($218) $209,280 * 10 = $2,092,800
20 -25 767 CA: ($226) $216,960 * 5 = $1,084,800
26-30 777 CA: $(270) $259,200 * 5 = $1,296,000
Company 401k Contribution (15%) = $867,600
Total = $6,651,600
AS/DL Diff = $658,800
UA Career -
1-5 737 FO: ($136) $130,560 * 5 = $652,800
6-10 767 FO: ($165) $158,400 * 5 = $792,000
11-20 737 CA: ($246) $236,160 * 10 = $2,361,600
20 -25 767 CA: ($255) $244,800 * 5 = $1,224,000
26-30 777 CA: $(305) $292,800 * 5 = $1,464,000
401K(16%): $1,039,104
UA Total: $7,533,504
AS/UA diff = $1,540,704
All pay = 80 hours at the middle rate for time period of position
AS career -
1-10 737 FO: ($124)$119,040 * 10 = $1,190,400
11-30 737 CA: ($213)$204,480 * 20 = $4,089,600
Company 401k contribution (13.5%)= $712,800
Total career earnings = $5,992,800
DL career -
1-5 737 FO: ($126) $120,960 * 5 = $604,800
6-10 767 FO: ($147) $141,120 * 5 = $705,600
11-20 737 CA: ($218) $209,280 * 10 = $2,092,800
20 -25 767 CA: ($226) $216,960 * 5 = $1,084,800
26-30 777 CA: $(270) $259,200 * 5 = $1,296,000
Company 401k Contribution (15%) = $867,600
Total = $6,651,600
AS/DL Diff = $658,800
UA Career -
1-5 737 FO: ($136) $130,560 * 5 = $652,800
6-10 767 FO: ($165) $158,400 * 5 = $792,000
11-20 737 CA: ($246) $236,160 * 10 = $2,361,600
20 -25 767 CA: ($255) $244,800 * 5 = $1,224,000
26-30 777 CA: $(305) $292,800 * 5 = $1,464,000
401K(16%): $1,039,104
UA Total: $7,533,504
AS/UA diff = $1,540,704
10-20-2016, 05:11 AM
#67
Banned
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: 7th green
Posts: 4,378
Because Alaska is in the unique (if not unique, then definitely rare amongst majors)position of not having any seat number language (all flying over XX seats go to mainline), we need to also be concerned about getting outsourced on the top also. Is it really so hard to envision Alaska management ordering 20 787's and then contracting ANA or Omni to fly them?
...If right now AS decided to get wide-bodies, or if we decided to play hardball on a contract, I don't think this management would hesitate to outsource the flying.
Just-saying.
...If right now AS decided to get wide-bodies, or if we decided to play hardball on a contract, I don't think this management would hesitate to outsource the flying.
Just-saying.
He then acquired some junker 767s and currently subservices that European flying to Omni 767s.
You don't think Saretsky and Tilden don't talk?
One thing AS management historically and categorically REFUSES to negotiate is scope. Unless AS pilots are willing to strike over scope, it's doubtful anything will change.
Last edited by Packrat; 10-20-2016 at 05:32 AM.
10-20-2016, 07:33 AM
#69
Moderator
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,857
DL career -
1-5 737 FO: ($126) $120,960 * 5 = $604,800
6-10 767 FO: ($147) $141,120 * 5 = $705,600
11-20 737 CA: ($218) $209,280 * 10 = $2,092,800
20 -25 767 CA: ($226) $216,960 * 5 = $1,084,800
26-30 777 CA: $(270) $259,200 * 5 = $1,296,000
Company 401k Contribution (15%) = $867,600
Total = $6,651,600
AS/DL Diff = $658,800
1-5 737 FO: ($126) $120,960 * 5 = $604,800
6-10 767 FO: ($147) $141,120 * 5 = $705,600
11-20 737 CA: ($218) $209,280 * 10 = $2,092,800
20 -25 767 CA: ($226) $216,960 * 5 = $1,084,800
26-30 777 CA: $(270) $259,200 * 5 = $1,296,000
Company 401k Contribution (15%) = $867,600
Total = $6,651,600
AS/DL Diff = $658,800
JK, those numbers are safe assumption for guys who seek a reasonable QOL. If you don't mind living in NYC, you can shift the upgrades to the left by a few years. Having said that, I live close to base (not NYC), and think I'll be able to upgrade to 717 Captain at year 3. Being single/no kids and not really caring when I work or being on reserve, allows me to do this. If I had a family I would not upgrade that quick.
As was said earlier, living in base is worth LOTS of $$$$. I left one legacy for another to be home based. Sitting short call at my house, as I am doing right now, is just too awesome!
10-20-2016, 08:48 AM
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2016
Position: 737 tiller master
Posts: 288
Many guys that have been here a little while...say, middle of the Captain list and up, don't see how our Scope...or really lack of Scope effects them. I was told by a union rep while voicing my concerns over Scope 1. E-mails from guys upset about RJ's going to Skywest were a fraction of the emails from guys upset that VSA changed under 117. 2. He personally didn't care about SCOPE because he came to AS to fly 737's not RJs.
When most people talk about Scope they are talking about nibbling away at the bottom flying. This is because most scope issues seen are in the context of United or AA or Delta who all have "seat number" protection.
Because Alaska is in the unique (if not unique, then definitely rare amongst majors)position of not having any seat number language (all flying over XX seats go to mainline), we need to also be concerned about getting outsourced on the top also. Is it really so hard to envision Alaska management ordering 20 787's and then contracting ANA or Omni to fly them?
Amazon has "airplanes", it's in the media as Amazon having airplanes, but yet there is no such thing as an "Amazon pilot". It could be the same here.
Amongst the junior pilots, I think the threat of the RJ's is clear. However, we have to change the language that we use when talking about it to make vivid, the threat that we face from above and below.
If right now AS decided to get wide-bodies, or if we decided to play hardball on a contract, I don't think this management would hesitate to outsource the flying.
Just-saying.
When most people talk about Scope they are talking about nibbling away at the bottom flying. This is because most scope issues seen are in the context of United or AA or Delta who all have "seat number" protection.
Because Alaska is in the unique (if not unique, then definitely rare amongst majors)position of not having any seat number language (all flying over XX seats go to mainline), we need to also be concerned about getting outsourced on the top also. Is it really so hard to envision Alaska management ordering 20 787's and then contracting ANA or Omni to fly them?
Amazon has "airplanes", it's in the media as Amazon having airplanes, but yet there is no such thing as an "Amazon pilot". It could be the same here.
Amongst the junior pilots, I think the threat of the RJ's is clear. However, we have to change the language that we use when talking about it to make vivid, the threat that we face from above and below.
If right now AS decided to get wide-bodies, or if we decided to play hardball on a contract, I don't think this management would hesitate to outsource the flying.
Just-saying.
No doubt, we need Scope but that's the last thing the company will want to give up. ALPA knows this too. The question that everyone needs to ask themselves is, how far are you really willing to go for Scope? No, I'm not willing to give up anything for it. Remember these 2 words: No Concessions!!!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
