Jetblue's new pay rates!!!
06-03-2009, 12:02 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start.....
Posts: 193
I agree. Higher payrates at RAH would be great. The problem is Brian Bedford decided to configure the E190s to 96 seats. What does this mean? It means he can use RAH's current payrates since they negotiated pay up to 99 seats back in 2003. It also means he was able to bypass the contractual requirement of 6 months notification to the union of new aircraft type so they could negotiate pay rates.
He will now be able to drag out contract negotiations, & RAH the Midwest CONNECTION carrier will be operating aircraft with MORE SEATS then the Midwest MAINLINE Aircraft. It's sad.
PS-I'm not trying to martyr the RAH pilots, just pointing out the typical sneaky games management plays on ALL pilots. Good Luck to the RAH pilots. Hopefully you'll find a way to get better payrates.
He will now be able to drag out contract negotiations, & RAH the Midwest CONNECTION carrier will be operating aircraft with MORE SEATS then the Midwest MAINLINE Aircraft. It's sad.
PS-I'm not trying to martyr the RAH pilots, just pointing out the typical sneaky games management plays on ALL pilots. Good Luck to the RAH pilots. Hopefully you'll find a way to get better payrates.
No the problem is that RAH pilots were stupid to have that in their contract in the first place.
There is nothing sneaky about this. They allowed an airplane with 99 seats or less to be paid at these pathetic rates. Whether this airplane was manufactured or not doesn't matter. They put it in their contract.
There contract has been up for over a year and a half so they've already been draging out negotiations.
There is nothing sneaky about this. They allowed an airplane with 99 seats or less to be paid at these pathetic rates. Whether this airplane was manufactured or not doesn't matter. They put it in their contract.
There contract has been up for over a year and a half so they've already been draging out negotiations.
Again those past pilots had no clue that this current situation would occur so it's definately unfair to blame the current pilots who weren't even around for the current contract.Sorry, I must have missed the memo where its worked out so nice for us.
Delta flight attendants are some of the most senior in the industry, yet the average Delta f/a made only $37,000 in 2008 compared to $40,000 at UA, $50,000 at CAL and AA and $53,000 at WN. On top of this the workrules for DL f/a's are all F.A.R minumims...again, the worst in the industry.
I worked 1,400 hours in 2008 and my W-2 said I made $37,000...again explain to me how well the threat of a union has workers for me.
Delta flight attendants are some of the most senior in the industry, yet the average Delta f/a made only $37,000 in 2008 compared to $40,000 at UA, $50,000 at CAL and AA and $53,000 at WN. On top of this the workrules for DL f/a's are all F.A.R minumims...again, the worst in the industry.
I worked 1,400 hours in 2008 and my W-2 said I made $37,000...again explain to me how well the threat of a union has workers for me.
06-03-2009, 12:44 PM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start.....
Posts: 193
You'll need to explain the statement "if they were really doing their job." Are you saying that in some way the unions are intentionally keeping payrates lower, employees unhappy, and working conditions inadequate? Surely they are not. Support this statement with references and examples.
2. During 9/11, with the help of the union the pilots of UAL (as well as other airlines) agreed to freeze wages and get rid of certain benefits until we all got through the horrible situation that occured. This all came with a guarantee that after it was all over the pay and benefits would return. Well it's been almost 8 years and have only seen things get worse with pay and QOL. The unions have not fought to get back to where the workers pay, benfits, and QOL should be. The workers want them back but to no avail.
Now this 3rd example had a little bit to do with the pilots but with recommendations from the unions......SCOPE!!! Scope has been released over and over and over again with the help of unions. What the pilots didn't realize is that this was a temporary fix for a long term problem. As soon as scope was released routes were lost, bigger aircraft were being flown for cheaper causing more losses of pay, QOL, and benefits and JOBS! You would think that if the unions were really trying to help the workers, when the management would come to them AGAIN and say "hey if you help the pilots release MORE scope we'll pay you and them even more" that the unions would say "wait a minute that's what you said last time and it didn't help as much as you said it would." and they would stop it right there....No such luck.
In my opinion, this is quite naive. Abolish unions and the corporation will find it in it's good heart to pay everyone well and provide fantastic benefits. What is a Corporation? The name comes of course from "corpo" meaning body. In the eyes of the law it is one undying person, comprised of many entities (people) that has a sole purpose. The only thing the Corporation cares about is MONEY. It is what it's purpose is. It is the reason for it's existence. It does not care, and is actually incapable of caring for intangibles that do not affect it's bottom line. Indirectly, if keeping employees marginally happy helps profitability, it will strive to help them, but only because it also affects total profit.
JetBlue is a great example. I am very glad for my JB buddies that they now have a respectable payrate, but I also notice that their "premium" pay doesn't kick in until 78 hours of hard time. Is this an actual gain? Or does the payrate increase basically reflect the amount these pilots were making previously when they flew the extra hours over premium? I can only surmise it is the latter. Most likely, they haven't gained anything except a number on paper. The "hidden" pay is now accounted for. Additionally, I would be happier for my JB brethren to have a trip rig, so they wouldn't have to fly all that hard time. This will never happen without the formation of a union. The corporations will simply never willingly surrender profit. If they could pay lower, they would. i.e. Without a union, the pressure on pay and benefits is actually negative, not positive. Besides inflationary increases, the company has no incentive to raise pay and benefits, and in fact would easily cut pay and benefits to maintain profit.
I think it is a benefit to realize that my company doesn't care about me in the least and that a union, however imperfect, is the only way to force a corporation to provide a decent QOL to it's workers. If a huge national union starts to resemble a corporation itself, then that can affect its operation. But I submit that with a real CBA, our JB buddies will have real gains in parity with the other airlines in terms of QOL, and pay is just one aspect. Your statement seems to reflect an attitude that puts a corporation on a pedestal that it doesn't deserve to be on. It is not your friend.
JetBlue is a great example. I am very glad for my JB buddies that they now have a respectable payrate, but I also notice that their "premium" pay doesn't kick in until 78 hours of hard time. Is this an actual gain? Or does the payrate increase basically reflect the amount these pilots were making previously when they flew the extra hours over premium? I can only surmise it is the latter. Most likely, they haven't gained anything except a number on paper. The "hidden" pay is now accounted for. Additionally, I would be happier for my JB brethren to have a trip rig, so they wouldn't have to fly all that hard time. This will never happen without the formation of a union. The corporations will simply never willingly surrender profit. If they could pay lower, they would. i.e. Without a union, the pressure on pay and benefits is actually negative, not positive. Besides inflationary increases, the company has no incentive to raise pay and benefits, and in fact would easily cut pay and benefits to maintain profit.
I think it is a benefit to realize that my company doesn't care about me in the least and that a union, however imperfect, is the only way to force a corporation to provide a decent QOL to it's workers. If a huge national union starts to resemble a corporation itself, then that can affect its operation. But I submit that with a real CBA, our JB buddies will have real gains in parity with the other airlines in terms of QOL, and pay is just one aspect. Your statement seems to reflect an attitude that puts a corporation on a pedestal that it doesn't deserve to be on. It is not your friend.
06-03-2009, 12:53 PM
#34
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
1. Midwest pilots....the union didn't help them AT ALL!!!!! They laughed all the way to the bank!
2. During 9/11, with the help of the union the pilots of UAL (as well as other airlines) agreed to freeze wages and get rid of certain benefits until we all got through the horrible situation that occured. This all came with a guarantee that after it was all over the pay and benefits would return. Well it's been almost 8 years and have only seen things get worse with pay and QOL. The unions have not fought to get back to where the workers pay, benfits, and QOL should be. The workers want them back but to no avail.
Now this 3rd example had a little bit to do with the pilots but with recommendations from the unions......SCOPE!!! Scope has been released over and over and over again with the help of unions. What the pilots didn't realize is that this was a temporary fix for a long term problem. As soon as scope was released routes were lost, bigger aircraft were being flown for cheaper causing more losses of pay, QOL, and benefits and JOBS! You would think that if the unions were really trying to help the workers, when the management would come to them AGAIN and say "hey if you help the pilots release MORE scope we'll pay you and them even more" that the unions would say "wait a minute that's what you said last time and it didn't help as much as you said it would." and they would stop it right there....No such luck.
Think about what is being said. That without unions the corporations would stomp all over the workers. NOT TRUE! My Dad works for a mortgage company and every year he gets a raise and a bonus for performance. He makes a little over $200,000 a year, loves what he does, and has great benefits and a great QOL. They have NEVER had a union and are still able to work out any issues they have. This is the NORM for Corporate America. On average if you have a degree, work hard, and work things out with the company, within 5 years of working for a good company you can EASILY be making $80,000-$100,000 a year! Look at the aviation industry. First starting out at a Regional airline you're LUCKY if you can make $35,000-$40,000 after 5 years. If the unions did what they are supposed to, we all would be making the 80K to 100K after 5 years starting out in the airlines. But since that is not the case we need to try an fix it ourselves. Why can't the airlines pay based on qualifications, experience, and performance like all the other companies in the world? I'm just trying help everyone see it from another perspective. Things could be different.
2. During 9/11, with the help of the union the pilots of UAL (as well as other airlines) agreed to freeze wages and get rid of certain benefits until we all got through the horrible situation that occured. This all came with a guarantee that after it was all over the pay and benefits would return. Well it's been almost 8 years and have only seen things get worse with pay and QOL. The unions have not fought to get back to where the workers pay, benfits, and QOL should be. The workers want them back but to no avail.
Now this 3rd example had a little bit to do with the pilots but with recommendations from the unions......SCOPE!!! Scope has been released over and over and over again with the help of unions. What the pilots didn't realize is that this was a temporary fix for a long term problem. As soon as scope was released routes were lost, bigger aircraft were being flown for cheaper causing more losses of pay, QOL, and benefits and JOBS! You would think that if the unions were really trying to help the workers, when the management would come to them AGAIN and say "hey if you help the pilots release MORE scope we'll pay you and them even more" that the unions would say "wait a minute that's what you said last time and it didn't help as much as you said it would." and they would stop it right there....No such luck.
Think about what is being said. That without unions the corporations would stomp all over the workers. NOT TRUE! My Dad works for a mortgage company and every year he gets a raise and a bonus for performance. He makes a little over $200,000 a year, loves what he does, and has great benefits and a great QOL. They have NEVER had a union and are still able to work out any issues they have. This is the NORM for Corporate America. On average if you have a degree, work hard, and work things out with the company, within 5 years of working for a good company you can EASILY be making $80,000-$100,000 a year! Look at the aviation industry. First starting out at a Regional airline you're LUCKY if you can make $35,000-$40,000 after 5 years. If the unions did what they are supposed to, we all would be making the 80K to 100K after 5 years starting out in the airlines. But since that is not the case we need to try an fix it ourselves. Why can't the airlines pay based on qualifications, experience, and performance like all the other companies in the world? I'm just trying help everyone see it from another perspective. Things could be different.
ALPA (the primary union) has become nothing more then a revenue scam with its own financial interests FIRST !
Don't believe me ?
Miss a payment (if you're not on dues checkoff) and see how fast a threatening letter arrives in the mail reminding you of possible termination for faliure to pay. Even utilities or the IRS don't do that that quickly.
As long as the saps and suckers whose profession continues steadily down the toilet keep writing checks and blaming each other, the fatcats continue to swell.
06-03-2009, 01:13 PM
#35
On Reserve
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 10
I also feel that if unions were abolished, the industry would be forced to pay the workers how the rest of the world pays it's workers.....by performance and qualifications! I think this would turn the whole industry around and make everyone happy once again. Cheers.
06-03-2009, 01:20 PM
#36
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Yep, those pilots who keep the best on-time record, write up the least mechanicals, keep their mouths shut and jump when they're told will indeed excel. Those that don't will be eliminated.
Ahh...........the ULTIMATE goal of airline management :
ELIMINATION OF UNIONS AND PESKY CONTRACTS
Then there's NOTHING to stop them from doing ANYTHING (after all, they would become abusive, would they ?).
The above characters shouldn't be pilots but airline managers !
Ahh...........the ULTIMATE goal of airline management :
ELIMINATION OF UNIONS AND PESKY CONTRACTS
Then there's NOTHING to stop them from doing ANYTHING (after all, they would become abusive, would they ?).
The above characters shouldn't be pilots but airline managers !
06-03-2009, 02:39 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 320 F/O
Posts: 168
So it's either the company was undercutting us or that we were not worth it... which one was it?
06-03-2009, 02:58 PM
#38
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: B-757 Captain
Posts: 38
Think about what is being said. That without unions the corporations would stomp all over the workers. NOT TRUE! My Dad works for a mortgage company and every year he gets a raise and a bonus for performance. He makes a little over $200,000 a year, loves what he does, and has great benefits and a great QOL. They have NEVER had a union and are still able to work out any issues they have. This is the NORM for Corporate America. On average if you have a degree, work hard, and work things out with the company, within 5 years of working for a good company you can EASILY be making $80,000-$100,000 a year! Look at the aviation industry. First starting out at a Regional airline you're LUCKY if you can make $35,000-$40,000 after 5 years. If the unions did what they are supposed to, we all would be making the 80K to 100K after 5 years starting out in the airlines. But since that is not the case we need to try an fix it ourselves. Why can't the airlines pay based on qualifications, experience, and performance like all the other companies in the world? I'm just trying help everyone see it from another perspective. Things could be different.
Respectfully, I hear you, and I'm disgusted sometimes at how our union forces us to choose between the lesser of two evils, but I submit that the lesser evil is the union. In regards to you father, we're not talking about white collar jobs in corporations and mortgage companies. We're talking about labor. As in Factory workers, and yes, us. We're all basically truck drivers, agreed?
Your dad and other corporate workers ARE management, in a sense. It's not the same thing. It's like making a case that the FedEx VPs are not in a union and making 500K, so we don't need one. No kidding, because that structure is in contrast with labor. Your dad also has the ability to laterally transfer with his qualifications. He is not "labor." If you want to read about the horrors and unsafe working conditions, think back to the early 20th century. We've all had things so easy for so long that we start to forget how bad it all could be. Think: Grapes of Wrath and The Jungle or even the early history of the airline piloting profession.
I for one don't want to work all the way out to FAR mins, every day, for minimum pay. If the regionals can't pay out, it's because they are in a market with way too much competition possibly, and because they are a possibly considered a stepping stone job. If you had a factory that all the workers aspired to work for a competitor with a bigger factory, higher wages, and better benefits, would you pay high or low? Add in the fact that there is a pilot surplus, and the market of course at the starting jobs is paying low. Not a union issue.
I'm not trying to make some specific case here. I am simply saying that in factory type labor jobs, and driving jobs that require oversight for safety like flying and overroad trucking, it is imperative to have our unions simply for work rules and safety. If the unions in your opinion keep pay rates low, it's because pilot groups are notoriously reluctant to strike, as opposed to the old days. Since we're all over mortgaged (not blaming your dad), none of us want to risk losing everything, so we tell our unions, "Do whatever you can to keep our jobs, even if it's a pay decrease." Now, if we actually had balls, we'd play it like the Norma Jean movie and strike early and often in order to get our way...
I see how you can feel the way you do, but I'm sorry, but I still feel it's naive to think a corporation will be happy to take care of us personally without being forced to. Drop the unions and eventually we'll all be working FAR mins, lowest pay possible, no retirement except a risk-your-own 401K, and zero trip rig style work rules. We are not the same as a corporate worker, even a cubicle worker. We all just need to grow some and use the "S" word more, not less. We all just haven't been in a really bad labor-management situation since the 30s and we've forgotten, we need to re-read some history. Don't believe all the "the company cares about you" stuff coming out of FN and CNBC.
06-03-2009, 04:31 PM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start.....
Posts: 193
Ben,
Respectfully, I hear you, and I'm disgusted sometimes at how our union forces us to choose between the lesser of two evils, but I submit that the lesser evil is the union. In regards to you father, we're not talking about white collar jobs in corporations and mortgage companies. We're talking about labor. As in Factory workers, and yes, us. We're all basically truck drivers, agreed?
Your dad and other corporate workers ARE management, in a sense. It's not the same thing. It's like making a case that the FedEx VPs are not in a union and making 500K, so we don't need one. No kidding, because that structure is in contrast with labor. Your dad also has the ability to laterally transfer with his qualifications. He is not "labor." If you want to read about the horrors and unsafe working conditions, think back to the early 20th century. We've all had things so easy for so long that we start to forget how bad it all could be. Think: Grapes of Wrath and The Jungle or even the early history of the airline piloting profession.
I for one don't want to work all the way out to FAR mins, every day, for minimum pay. If the regionals can't pay out, it's because they are in a market with way too much competition possibly, and because they are a possibly considered a stepping stone job. If you had a factory that all the workers aspired to work for a competitor with a bigger factory, higher wages, and better benefits, would you pay high or low? Add in the fact that there is a pilot surplus, and the market of course at the starting jobs is paying low. Not a union issue.
I'm not trying to make some specific case here. I am simply saying that in factory type labor jobs, and driving jobs that require oversight for safety like flying and overroad trucking, it is imperative to have our unions simply for work rules and safety. If the unions in your opinion keep pay rates low, it's because pilot groups are notoriously reluctant to strike, as opposed to the old days. Since we're all over mortgaged (not blaming your dad), none of us want to risk losing everything, so we tell our unions, "Do whatever you can to keep our jobs, even if it's a pay decrease." Now, if we actually had balls, we'd play it like the Norma Jean movie and strike early and often in order to get our way...
I see how you can feel the way you do, but I'm sorry, but I still feel it's naive to think a corporation will be happy to take care of us personally without being forced to. Drop the unions and eventually we'll all be working FAR mins, lowest pay possible, no retirement except a risk-your-own 401K, and zero trip rig style work rules. We are not the same as a corporate worker, even a cubicle worker. We all just need to grow some and use the "S" word more, not less. We all just haven't been in a really bad labor-management situation since the 30s and we've forgotten, we need to re-read some history. Don't believe all the "the company cares about you" stuff coming out of FN and CNBC.
Respectfully, I hear you, and I'm disgusted sometimes at how our union forces us to choose between the lesser of two evils, but I submit that the lesser evil is the union. In regards to you father, we're not talking about white collar jobs in corporations and mortgage companies. We're talking about labor. As in Factory workers, and yes, us. We're all basically truck drivers, agreed?
Your dad and other corporate workers ARE management, in a sense. It's not the same thing. It's like making a case that the FedEx VPs are not in a union and making 500K, so we don't need one. No kidding, because that structure is in contrast with labor. Your dad also has the ability to laterally transfer with his qualifications. He is not "labor." If you want to read about the horrors and unsafe working conditions, think back to the early 20th century. We've all had things so easy for so long that we start to forget how bad it all could be. Think: Grapes of Wrath and The Jungle or even the early history of the airline piloting profession.
I for one don't want to work all the way out to FAR mins, every day, for minimum pay. If the regionals can't pay out, it's because they are in a market with way too much competition possibly, and because they are a possibly considered a stepping stone job. If you had a factory that all the workers aspired to work for a competitor with a bigger factory, higher wages, and better benefits, would you pay high or low? Add in the fact that there is a pilot surplus, and the market of course at the starting jobs is paying low. Not a union issue.
I'm not trying to make some specific case here. I am simply saying that in factory type labor jobs, and driving jobs that require oversight for safety like flying and overroad trucking, it is imperative to have our unions simply for work rules and safety. If the unions in your opinion keep pay rates low, it's because pilot groups are notoriously reluctant to strike, as opposed to the old days. Since we're all over mortgaged (not blaming your dad), none of us want to risk losing everything, so we tell our unions, "Do whatever you can to keep our jobs, even if it's a pay decrease." Now, if we actually had balls, we'd play it like the Norma Jean movie and strike early and often in order to get our way...
I see how you can feel the way you do, but I'm sorry, but I still feel it's naive to think a corporation will be happy to take care of us personally without being forced to. Drop the unions and eventually we'll all be working FAR mins, lowest pay possible, no retirement except a risk-your-own 401K, and zero trip rig style work rules. We are not the same as a corporate worker, even a cubicle worker. We all just need to grow some and use the "S" word more, not less. We all just haven't been in a really bad labor-management situation since the 30s and we've forgotten, we need to re-read some history. Don't believe all the "the company cares about you" stuff coming out of FN and CNBC.
Goes, I see your point. I totally agree that we as pilots need to understand that as long as we use it correctly striking could and has been very helpful in fixing this industry wide problem. I just wish the unions would have the guts that they once did to stand up to the management and help us out a little more. I also see how maybe we could keep the unions yet figure out some way to get us paid with qualifications, experience, (and to fix what Eaglefly said in response to my remarks), SAFE performance. So Eaglefly, what I'm saying is not jumping when they say jump or flying unsafely but getting paid for SAFE on-time performance, and doing what we can to make the airline better. I feel that we all need to come together and fix the very serious problems plaguing our industry. Everything from being paid too little, to not getting enough rest in order to fly safe, and as we've just seen, being pushed to get somewhere on time without diverting which causes us to do something unsafe like flying through a thunderstorm. (God Bless those of the Air France 447 tragedy and their families). We can do this but we all have to come together as well as getting the help that we need from the unions. We need to get the unions to work for US again as well as getting us as pilots to stop bickering amongst ourselves and fighting for whats right and what NEEDS to be done.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
