Scope
09-30-2014, 09:19 AM
#71
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Position: Pitot heat, what's to eat?
Posts: 392
I really don't think staffing on group I is that big of an issue. Yes they are having trouble keeping the very bottom reserve spots filled, but they are having the same trouble with 767 F/O spots and even the very bottom spots on the A330 go very junior. Basically every fleet nobody wants to be the bottom guy so long as there is good movement, might as well wait a few more months and enjoy some seniority in your current fleet. It's not like they are cancelling flights, they just offer a little premium pay every once in a while.
If you grow the Group I fleet it's not likely to get any worse IMHO. People will bid over if they can be in the top or middle seniority wise. Put them in a base people want (NY or BOS or even dare I say PIT) and the problem will go away.
Honestly it's not much more expensive for the company to fly these planes at mainline. They don't want to do it because they can't whipsaw the mainline pilots. I say hold the line. And don't believe Kirby for a minute when he says it's just for existing planes and orders...
If you grow the Group I fleet it's not likely to get any worse IMHO. People will bid over if they can be in the top or middle seniority wise. Put them in a base people want (NY or BOS or even dare I say PIT) and the problem will go away.
Honestly it's not much more expensive for the company to fly these planes at mainline. They don't want to do it because they can't whipsaw the mainline pilots. I say hold the line. And don't believe Kirby for a minute when he says it's just for existing planes and orders...
09-30-2014, 09:24 AM
#72
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Position: Airbus button pusher
Posts: 2,448
What if we say no way on the 5 seat increase and push for the 175s on the mainline. We all agree that is something we would like to see, but don't think we should have to "pay" for it. What if the company said "Okay. We want the 5 more seats, so we will put them on the mainline if you agree to the same rate for E175-195." We take it, and then the company goes and gets 50 E195 and parks 50 older 319s(they don't like the 319 now). Would that being in the best interest?
Again it's not a simple as it seems.I'm skeptical that 777 and 330 captains will give up on $270 an hour to hold the line on 5 seats.
On that note, do we get a vote on the JCBA, or will the APA decide for us?
Again it's not a simple as it seems.I'm skeptical that 777 and 330 captains will give up on $270 an hour to hold the line on 5 seats.
On that note, do we get a vote on the JCBA, or will the APA decide for us?
09-30-2014, 11:42 AM
#77
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Posts: 449
think i read anything outside of sec 6, doesn't require membership ratification, but a amendment was put in that will allow the BOD to put the JCBA out for vote, IF they feel they should, or something like that....
so with that, probably not
so with that, probably not
09-30-2014, 12:00 PM
#78
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Posts: 203
I'm not sure if we will get to vote or not. If there are some questionable items, they may say put it to a vote for political reasons. Scope could be one of those items. The problem with the vote, is it really won't matter. The upper limit of the JCBA costs are defined in the MOU. If what management proposes is greater than that, and we vote no, it will go to arbitration where the upper cost limit cannot be exceeded. So we will get a lesser of a contract that way... I would just like to see what's actually being considered before it gets approved...
09-30-2014, 12:06 PM
#79
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: A terminal bum
Posts: 421
I'm not sure if we will get to vote or not. If there are some questionable items, they may say put it to a vote for political reasons. Scope could be one of those items. The problem with the vote, is it really won't matter. The upper limit of the JCBA costs are defined in the MOU. If what management proposes is greater than that, and we vote no, it will go to arbitration where the upper cost limit cannot be exceeded. So we will get a lesser of a contract that way... I would just like to see what's actually being considered before it gets approved...
09-30-2014, 12:13 PM
#80
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Posts: 203
Another thing to consider could be a possible compromise. I do understand Kirby's logic that the 175's are not being used as efficiently as they could. Without getting into the MOU and pulling out the real numbers, a compromise could look something like this:
The MOU limits the number of RJ's. Granted it's a big number. Too big in my opinion. But for this post lets say the limit is 200 jets at 76 seats. That equals 15,200 seats in the system. So if we allowed 81 seats, but keep the same number of total seats in the system as a limit, that would mean 15,200 seats divided by 81 seats equals about 187 jets. That's a reduction of around 13 RJ's allowed...
If we could trade the increased seats per RJ for a lower percentage of RJ's allowed, could that be acceptable? If the math is done on the actual numbers, I would be interested in what they would look like...
The MOU limits the number of RJ's. Granted it's a big number. Too big in my opinion. But for this post lets say the limit is 200 jets at 76 seats. That equals 15,200 seats in the system. So if we allowed 81 seats, but keep the same number of total seats in the system as a limit, that would mean 15,200 seats divided by 81 seats equals about 187 jets. That's a reduction of around 13 RJ's allowed...
If we could trade the increased seats per RJ for a lower percentage of RJ's allowed, could that be acceptable? If the math is done on the actual numbers, I would be interested in what they would look like...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
