PDT News and Rumors
08-30-2014, 09:32 AM
#5401
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Hot tub for now
Posts: 1,203
PSA will have 900 pilots shortly and we only have 48 going per year.
Either way you look at this. The flow to mainline is only to keep people at the regionals. Mainline management knows that they have gotten away with murder the last 10 years and it is coming to an end. They are scrambling to make sure that the regional jets are staffed.
Again what we need our beloved union to do is get us all a number at mainline today. Then it wouldn't matter when they called you or how many they took in a year. Stay at PDT for 10 years longer but you will have a seat waiting for you at mainline. It seems to be the most logical decision mainline management can make. Unless they offer less and you take it.
Either way you look at this. The flow to mainline is only to keep people at the regionals. Mainline management knows that they have gotten away with murder the last 10 years and it is coming to an end. They are scrambling to make sure that the regional jets are staffed.
Again what we need our beloved union to do is get us all a number at mainline today. Then it wouldn't matter when they called you or how many they took in a year. Stay at PDT for 10 years longer but you will have a seat waiting for you at mainline. It seems to be the most logical decision mainline management can make. Unless they offer less and you take it.
08-30-2014, 09:33 AM
#5402
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 68
I'm not fluent on PDT route structure, but looking at the equipment and just a glance at their route map is one of the reasons I'm very skeptical about 175s at PDT. I think if one takes a very hard look at the TA when it surfaces, one will be able to discern what the plan is.
08-30-2014, 09:51 AM
#5403
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Position: 206
Posts: 573
Numbers would be great but will probably never happen. Going from the current SSP to a direct flow with increased numbers per month could happen if the union tried to trade away the SAP and/or critical pay.
08-30-2014, 09:59 AM
#5404
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2013
Posts: 2,594
Funny how they lump republic in as holding the line. Hahaha I remember all those FO's making 30k a year at PDT jumping ship to Republic to fly a shiny 175 for 15k a year? Really? Let the market play it's self out. If our deal is so bad then nobody will come here. They (republic) would jump all over this deal. Don't fool yourself.
08-30-2014, 11:03 AM
#5406
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Position: Shiny One
Posts: 235
08-30-2014, 11:30 AM
#5407
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Posts: 148
08-30-2014, 12:22 PM
#5409
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 219
From EL.
I am getting ahead of myself here in what I intend to post but have you stopped to consider the following facts.
An AAG spokes person, Casey Norton, if I remember correctly said that due to the failure to reach an agreement AAG intended to wait for the 2016 amendment round to renew talks.
The amendment date is in October of that year but in reality you never wait until the amendment date to begin talks. So the company has admitted they have to talk to us in 2016 and have left a window open to return at anytime in the interim under the guise of starting amendment round talks.
Nobody including the union or myself has denied the fact that the company will be able to staff the initial cadre of aircraft at other carriers. Rather, our assertion is that the company will not be able to sustain this model indefinitely and that the odds favor a swing in our direction sooner rather than later.
How does this help you?
If I understand your post you are saying you want PIC turbine time ASAP.
Have you considered the fact that AAG is already failing to honor the intent of the PSA deal and that the PDT TA has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. DAL while promising future jobs at mainline is also playing games with the pilots at Endeavor and cannot staff.
Bottom line is that managements know the word is out on the disastrous flow agreements of the past and are trying to repackage them with a different spin.
But as the saying goes "fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me".
Pilots are networking as never before and it's not as easy as it used to be to pull a "fast one" as they say.
The fact is finally dawning on many pilots that if the hiring boom does materialize they won't need a FT and that in the meantime the here and now is what counts. In fact waiting for your slot in an FT could prove to be a detriment as it did to myself. You yourself are essentially saying the same thing except you would prefer an upgrade over compensation.
Have you considered that due to the 824 agreement and other language our contract pretty much ensures the company cannot easily stop the flow to AA without facing substantial risk in penalties. For real or imagined bargaining purposes management must keep the Envoy flow to AA going strong. Managements argument is that we are not competitive due to longevity. The upcoming amendment round allows for an arbitrated settlement.
If they jam up the flow and then argue longevity pay as the key issue the union will point out it is their own fault. Being businessmen they know this and you can bet the statisticians have been consulted to calculate the minimum number of pilots to flow while still maintaining their argument.
On the other hand we have yet to see any substantial upward movement at PSA. Delivery of the larger aircraft is predicated on current staffing and parking the old fleet so movement will be mostly lateral. PDT will be no different if they except such a weakly worded TA.
So in the short haul on what property do you think the most upward movement will be?
I'd put my money on Envoy. We have a large fleet of smaller aircraft. Yes, they are obsolete in once sense. But just look around you in the terminals. They are packed and consumer demand is rising.
How many times have airline managements announced fleet retirements only to back off as they realize without those so called obsolete aircraft continuing to work long into the transition of a new fleet that their operation will suffer. We've seen this on our AE property many times.
Just yesterday I was talking to an AA MD80 captain who told me the word they are hearing is that Parker has shifted plans and now intends to keep the MD80s around for a long time to come, even perhaps reactivating retired aircraft.
Unprofitable is managements definition of more expensive to operate versus newer larger aircraft. It does not mean these aircraft lose money; especially in the face of increased consumer competition for seats available.
It's a double whammy if they park them too early. They lose revenue short term and even more importantly they lose potential repeat customers to competitors because of lack of available seats.
I' m going to stop here, but hopefully you see where I am going with this and can reason it out.
I am getting ahead of myself here in what I intend to post but have you stopped to consider the following facts.
An AAG spokes person, Casey Norton, if I remember correctly said that due to the failure to reach an agreement AAG intended to wait for the 2016 amendment round to renew talks.
The amendment date is in October of that year but in reality you never wait until the amendment date to begin talks. So the company has admitted they have to talk to us in 2016 and have left a window open to return at anytime in the interim under the guise of starting amendment round talks.
Nobody including the union or myself has denied the fact that the company will be able to staff the initial cadre of aircraft at other carriers. Rather, our assertion is that the company will not be able to sustain this model indefinitely and that the odds favor a swing in our direction sooner rather than later.
How does this help you?
If I understand your post you are saying you want PIC turbine time ASAP.
Have you considered the fact that AAG is already failing to honor the intent of the PSA deal and that the PDT TA has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. DAL while promising future jobs at mainline is also playing games with the pilots at Endeavor and cannot staff.
Bottom line is that managements know the word is out on the disastrous flow agreements of the past and are trying to repackage them with a different spin.
But as the saying goes "fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me".
Pilots are networking as never before and it's not as easy as it used to be to pull a "fast one" as they say.
The fact is finally dawning on many pilots that if the hiring boom does materialize they won't need a FT and that in the meantime the here and now is what counts. In fact waiting for your slot in an FT could prove to be a detriment as it did to myself. You yourself are essentially saying the same thing except you would prefer an upgrade over compensation.
Have you considered that due to the 824 agreement and other language our contract pretty much ensures the company cannot easily stop the flow to AA without facing substantial risk in penalties. For real or imagined bargaining purposes management must keep the Envoy flow to AA going strong. Managements argument is that we are not competitive due to longevity. The upcoming amendment round allows for an arbitrated settlement.
If they jam up the flow and then argue longevity pay as the key issue the union will point out it is their own fault. Being businessmen they know this and you can bet the statisticians have been consulted to calculate the minimum number of pilots to flow while still maintaining their argument.
On the other hand we have yet to see any substantial upward movement at PSA. Delivery of the larger aircraft is predicated on current staffing and parking the old fleet so movement will be mostly lateral. PDT will be no different if they except such a weakly worded TA.
So in the short haul on what property do you think the most upward movement will be?
I'd put my money on Envoy. We have a large fleet of smaller aircraft. Yes, they are obsolete in once sense. But just look around you in the terminals. They are packed and consumer demand is rising.
How many times have airline managements announced fleet retirements only to back off as they realize without those so called obsolete aircraft continuing to work long into the transition of a new fleet that their operation will suffer. We've seen this on our AE property many times.
Just yesterday I was talking to an AA MD80 captain who told me the word they are hearing is that Parker has shifted plans and now intends to keep the MD80s around for a long time to come, even perhaps reactivating retired aircraft.
Unprofitable is managements definition of more expensive to operate versus newer larger aircraft. It does not mean these aircraft lose money; especially in the face of increased consumer competition for seats available.
It's a double whammy if they park them too early. They lose revenue short term and even more importantly they lose potential repeat customers to competitors because of lack of available seats.
I' m going to stop here, but hopefully you see where I am going with this and can reason it out.
08-30-2014, 12:48 PM
#5410
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 219
19+36=55 ~ 2%
So it gets worse as you get larger. It may or may not affect the guys on property. That will be dependent on managements.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
