TA Reached
12-11-2022, 03:36 PM
#351
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 91
First Year Pay
Company may increase the year-one First Officer hourly pay rate to a maximum of ninety-eight and one-half (98.5%) of the year-two First Officer pay rate. If the Company raises the year-one First Officer pay rate, it will pay the same rate for all year-one First Officers. Any such increase in the year-one First Officer rate will remain in effect.
12-11-2022, 04:02 PM
#352
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: A320
Posts: 1,317
Originally Posted by PossibleDeviation;[url=tel:3549673
3549673[/url]]So if the TA passes, can the company increase first year pay, without negotiation? Yes or no? If yes, how did they get that? Oh, we’ve conceded that to them.
Well that’s a pretty self centered use of the term concession. Like flying alone?
12-11-2022, 04:10 PM
#353
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,203
Did you read the email?
First Year Pay
Company may increase the year-one First Officer hourly pay rate to a maximum of ninety-eight and one-half (98.5%) of the year-two First Officer pay rate. If the Company raises the year-one First Officer pay rate, it will pay the same rate for all year-one First Officers. Any such increase in the year-one First Officer rate will remain in effect.
First Year Pay
Company may increase the year-one First Officer hourly pay rate to a maximum of ninety-eight and one-half (98.5%) of the year-two First Officer pay rate. If the Company raises the year-one First Officer pay rate, it will pay the same rate for all year-one First Officers. Any such increase in the year-one First Officer rate will remain in effect.
Now you can debate ENDLESSLY if the overall package was rich enough or if it was fairly divided (it’s pretty obvious to me it was biased toward the year groups with the most attrition and toward raising our industry lagging first year pay), but claiming it wasn’t negotiated is utter nonsense, it was ALL negotiated and we get to vote to ratify it or not as a group.
12-11-2022, 04:23 PM
#354
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 91
Yep. Now did that get in the TA because it was NEGOTIATED or did the company sneak it in when everybody on the NC was at cocktail hour and the NC and MEC just never noticed? I think it was likely negotiated in the same package that gave the other year groups increases.
Now you can debate ENDLESSLY if the overall package was rich enough or if it was fairly divided (it’s pretty obvious to me it was biased toward the year groups with the most attrition and toward raising our industry lagging first year pay), but claiming it wasn’t negotiated is utter nonsense, it was ALL negotiated and we get to vote to ratify it or not as a group.
Now you can debate ENDLESSLY if the overall package was rich enough or if it was fairly divided (it’s pretty obvious to me it was biased toward the year groups with the most attrition and toward raising our industry lagging first year pay), but claiming it wasn’t negotiated is utter nonsense, it was ALL negotiated and we get to vote to ratify it or not as a group.
12-11-2022, 04:32 PM
#355
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2019
Posts: 76
This. No reason to recall anyone unless they start telling us this is the best we can do and no point going back to the table asking for more.
If we vote no, in particular if we vote resoundingly no, then the MEC gives the NC new marching orders and goes back to work.
I’m not telling anyone how to vote, but if you vote yes for this, do it because you are absolutely sure that’s the best we can get and it’s what you are worth. Don’t vote yes out of fear for what might happen.
Halon’s drivel about giving up money now is exactly the spinelessness the company was hoping for… god forbid we have people with his attitude the next time a work action becomes necessary.
If we vote no, in particular if we vote resoundingly no, then the MEC gives the NC new marching orders and goes back to work.
I’m not telling anyone how to vote, but if you vote yes for this, do it because you are absolutely sure that’s the best we can get and it’s what you are worth. Don’t vote yes out of fear for what might happen.
Halon’s drivel about giving up money now is exactly the spinelessness the company was hoping for… god forbid we have people with his attitude the next time a work action becomes necessary.
There is always a time cost to these things. You vote yes on a meh agreement or you send the JV back in with hopes of a catastrophic collapse on part of the opponent. As AT&T used to say, you make the call. As always, everyone will vote or should vote for what's best for their family.
Last edited by Avro85; 12-11-2022 at 04:52 PM.
12-11-2022, 04:36 PM
#356
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2018
Posts: 200
No one is saying it wasn't negotiated. What were saying is its giving control of first year pay over to the company in which cases will allow them to fix the biggest problem they have which is again attrition in year one and getting people in the door. Once they can fix the problem themselves they no longer need to negotiate with us as a pilot group hence the Concession. We would be losing the single biggest piece of leverage we have to use at any future date.
What did you think was going to happen? This is exactly as planned and explained. You are right, they no longer have that problem. The next leverage is them needing to combine the two airlines and that happens at the JCBA.
12-11-2022, 04:48 PM
#357
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,203
I don’t understand this fetish many senior people have about wanting to screw over the newbies. I mean everybody talks about wanting legacy rates - I want that too - but the legacies don’t screw over their newbies (OK, Hawaii excepted).
I’m beginning to suspect it’s some kind of a cult sexual fetish…
12-11-2022, 04:51 PM
#358
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 394
The bulk of the attrition is not coming from first year FOs. And if they lower hiring criteria enough, classes will fill.
You also have to consider that this is only a two year deal. They could have gone with a longer and nominally better deal and back loaded it. Then it would have been JBs problem.
You also have to consider that this is only a two year deal. They could have gone with a longer and nominally better deal and back loaded it. Then it would have been JBs problem.
12-11-2022, 04:51 PM
#359
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 91
That's kind of the whole point. Let them increase first year pay to fix the biggest problem they have and use that leverage to make sure they raise they pay for everyone else too.
What did you think was going to happen? This is exactly as planned and explained. You are right, they no longer have that problem. The next leverage is them needing to combine the two airlines and that happens at the JCBA.
What did you think was going to happen? This is exactly as planned and explained. You are right, they no longer have that problem. The next leverage is them needing to combine the two airlines and that happens at the JCBA.
12-11-2022, 04:55 PM
#360
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2021
Posts: 1,035
No we want first year pay to start at what they can raise it to in this TA and adjust the rest of the scale up accordingly from the get go. Also eliminate training pay for 90hr guarantee in training and full benefits.
This keep everyone low but if it creates a recruitment problem then we will just up first year approach that’s the problem
This keep everyone low but if it creates a recruitment problem then we will just up first year approach that’s the problem
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
