Nevets

You can't have legitimate policies until you have a legitimate way to have a neutral third party decide any disputes of said policies. And until you can independently verify the company's numbers, then you have no legs to stand on.

disillusioned

Not to mention the 2.4% was based on flying 1000 hours per year for every pilot. While is seems that is SGU's goal, it simply doesn't happen. With another month of being awarded 91 hours, until the company comes out and tells everyone why they will not guarantee pay for those that time out, I say no way.

The EB just needs to come to terms with SGU is reaping what they sow with the treatment of crews. No longer are we going to trust them to do the right thing. We know that CS will look for every way to abuse their power and treat the crews like servants. You have burned your goodwill and no longer are people going to help out. There are those that will and they will want a premium to do so. I don't see enough financial discouragement in this policy for SGU to do the right (cheap) thing and the level of power it gives them would be a huge hit to QOL for lineholders.

Here is a solution. Let's have all the EB and SAPA reps do a month or two reserve using the EFB for notification and reflow. They can come back and let us all know how much money they made, and how SS followed all the rules. I mean, I know that would never happen but I get all giddy just thinking about it. Just like I would love our PBS SAPA rep to try using PBS when you are not in the top 10%. Guess what, it doesn't work the same way for everyone else.

Flyer2000

Now I just read that our EMP CA's on Bypass pay (forced to bypass CRJ class while someone junior is awarded) are being told that their RATE is actually an OVERRIDE. So CRJ CA/FO pay for BLOCK ONLY. all soft time (Vac/Sick, DH, CNX, TNG etc.) will be at their EMB rate. That is NOT what policy states. According to the EMB CA....JP agrees with Company and that it wouldn't be "fair" for an EMB pilot to make this extra money. ****?

Call SAPA all you want, they do not have our back. This EB is all about playing nice in the Company sandbox. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but not at the expense of the pilots they represent (allegedly)

Nevets

Honestly, what could they do? If the company reinterprets the policy this way, what exactly can anyone do about it? What recourse does any pilot have to combat this when it happens to them?

rickair7777

Calm down, this sounds like one pilot may not have gotten paid properly...probably clerical error. Others did get paid, but the pay statement is a little confusing.

Now if what you said actually turns out to be true...

disillusioned

Rickair That is the way they play the game. You can think it is a clerical error, but just like our paychecks, the error is never in favor of the pilot. We do an MOU or change something when the natives get restless enough, and the company will just start doing it to one or two people again to see how much they can get away with. All of a sudden "it's the way we have always done it"

Then our EB will come out and make these claims of how much they have done for our pilot group. When all they are really doing is changing policy to match company practice. I really hope this recall thing gets some traction. Our pilot group is in a worse position overall during this president's regime. The level of arrogance and condescending attitude towards our group is at all time high. I would love to hear some theory's about why none of our reps show interest in the EB positions.

rickair7777

Not to say it couldn't happen but a one-off clerical error is likely just that...a clerical error. I got annoyed at pay errors and started tracking them with a spreadsheet at one point. After about two years I realzied the net error was in my favor, so I stopped tracking. The girls in SGU are none too bright...and Machiavellian schemes take some IQ to pull off.

In this case it seems other folks are getting paid right, but the statements are confusing.

disillusioned

Now that you say that, it does make sense that you wouldn't hear from anyone if the error was in their favor.

And you probably are on to something with the nefarious plot. CS has a hard enough time looking a couple hours ahead. It gives them way to much credit to be able to plan and execute something across multiple levels. Just good old incompetence in action.

Flyer2000

I don't think its a clerical error when he was told his Complaint (PIC) was denied and JP agreed with the company. Said it wasn't fair to pay him. It does appear that there are others are saying they were paid correctly, but it makes you wonder whether they really checked.

Guess the point is not so much the company's inconsistent application of policies.....lots of company try to get away with whatever they can. It's more a lack of the pilots (JP & RJ) who say they are here to represent our voice actually doing so. We have gone back to the old days of SAPA voicing managements concerns to the pilots and shoving bad policies on us.

disillusioned

I was just browsing the SAPA site and ran across the old meeting minutes we used to get. If you are interested, they can be found by going to Resources at the top, then SAPA Documents and Archive.

After looking through them, my question for everyone is this. Was this information useful? I remember it was a little hard to find on the old site, but I would read through them when they were out there. A lot of the stuff from the minutes is on the new site, but I think you got a better feel for what was going on in the meetings by reading these. Also, it had the reps voting records which I know some people were asking about recently. Anyone know why we stopped doing these?