Smaller raise for FOs?
02-07-2023, 09:17 AM
#111
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2015
Position: Gear slinger
Posts: 2,981
We have taken from one group to give increases to another in the past. Not too terribly long ago we used negotiating capital (industry wide) that historically would have been used to raise the rates for those off probation to end the historic practice of extremely low first year compensation. Recently we overwhelmingly voted to take from Peter to pay Paul in the pandemic LOA.
Perhaps arguing larger increases for NB captains should be thought of as if done through a LOA. If after we spent all available capital on a contract that addressed most issues, including significant reserve improvements, the company came to us asking for a bump in pay for NB captains to fill the vacancies that remain unfilled, would it pass? Likewise, if reserve rules fell far short in the contract would it be acceptable for the company to come back to us and ask for a LOA to give only to reserve pilots to entice vacancies to be filled?
We (myself included) say that unfilled vacancies is a company issue to solve, yet we argue against solutions that aren’t fair to all groups. Nothing is fair. It is argued that NB captains getting a larger percentage increase in pay is not fair to all of the other pilots on the list, the majority of which are not NB captains. Is it therefore also unfair to expect the majority of pilots who are not on reserve to sacrifice negotiating capital to benefit the minority of pilots who are? It just seems odd to me that people demand that the company spend more money on reserve rule improvements affecting only a targeted group of pilots to encourage improved QOL for those on reserve and to help fill vacancies, yet they balk at a pay bump for a targeted group that would affect their QOL and also help fill vacancies.
Perhaps arguing larger increases for NB captains should be thought of as if done through a LOA. If after we spent all available capital on a contract that addressed most issues, including significant reserve improvements, the company came to us asking for a bump in pay for NB captains to fill the vacancies that remain unfilled, would it pass? Likewise, if reserve rules fell far short in the contract would it be acceptable for the company to come back to us and ask for a LOA to give only to reserve pilots to entice vacancies to be filled?
We (myself included) say that unfilled vacancies is a company issue to solve, yet we argue against solutions that aren’t fair to all groups. Nothing is fair. It is argued that NB captains getting a larger percentage increase in pay is not fair to all of the other pilots on the list, the majority of which are not NB captains. Is it therefore also unfair to expect the majority of pilots who are not on reserve to sacrifice negotiating capital to benefit the minority of pilots who are? It just seems odd to me that people demand that the company spend more money on reserve rule improvements affecting only a targeted group of pilots to encourage improved QOL for those on reserve and to help fill vacancies, yet they balk at a pay bump for a targeted group that would affect their QOL and also help fill vacancies.
Narrowbody CAs championing to get extra pay to do a job they’re already by doing comes off as a selfish money grab by those pilots that doesn’t benefit anyone but the ones already doing the job. If people think your jobs sucks, you taking money of their pockets and giving it to yourself doesn’t make your job suck any less. It just makes people want to watch you choke on your crew meal more because you’re an *******. You’re job is still going to suck after you’re dead, and they’re still not going to upgrade.
Narrowbody Captains are saying paying themselves more will get people to upgrade like them. The target audience for upgrades is saying fix work rules/QOL. The target audience has a better idea of what’s needed for them to fill the gaps.
02-07-2023, 10:46 AM
#113
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,090
first, there are far fewer WB CA. As a result you have:
- probably enough people live in base to cover the need
- it is perceived as more “special” and folks bid for it even if it is for the last few years in their career to “check the box”
- total days worked is probably a lot lower for WB CA reserve vs NB CA reserve
- flying is just more attractive- there are unfilled 756 CA vacancies in the west coast but not in EWR or DCA
02-07-2023, 11:17 AM
#114
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 2,525
What he is saying is if we use our capital to negotiate 25/25, then company might say, we’ll throw some more on top to incentivize upgrades and say 30/25. The collective part of CBA says “then give us 29/29” and the company says nope. So you end up with 25/25 cuz “fair”.
Yes, I completely understand. However, I just think there’s a number and whether that’s spread equally or across a b-scale, it’s the same number. If captains are already getting a bigger pay raise inherently, the other 5% on top of an already bigger raise doesn’t seem that it would matter for their purposes. By that I mean, if CA’s are on average getting a $20k increase in pay more than the average FO, that additional carrot of 5% wouldn’t be the tipping point to solving upgrades.
02-07-2023, 11:24 AM
#115
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,361
Company's problem to solve? Absolutely. But why not use their need to solve this problem to advocate for a solution that benefits us rather than wait for them to come up with a less pilot friendly alternative? As I’ve said before, this idea is way too unpopular to gain traction & thus probably isn’t worth the effort, which is a shame because I think we’re leaving money on the table.
02-07-2023, 11:26 AM
#116
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2020
Posts: 2,347
Reserve rule improvements (especially eliminating rolled days off) increase staffing requirements and more WB CA vacancies, which benefit the pilot group as a whole. Improving reserve rules (FSB and short call nonsense) will help fix the NB unfilled CA vacancies which benefits the union as a whole because there’s less need for the company to degrade work rules for line holders to cover additional flying (raising monthly PBS cap, additional min rest overnights etc.).
Narrowbody CAs championing to get extra pay to do a job they’re already by doing comes off as a selfish money grab by those pilots that doesn’t benefit anyone but the ones already doing the job. If people think your jobs sucks, you taking money of their pockets and giving it to yourself doesn’t make your job suck any less. It just makes people want to watch you choke on your crew meal more because you’re an *******. You’re job is still going to suck after you’re dead, and they’re still not going to upgrade.
Narrowbody Captains are saying paying themselves more will get people to upgrade like them. The target audience for upgrades is saying fix work rules/QOL. The target audience has a better idea of what’s needed for them to fill the gaps.
Narrowbody CAs championing to get extra pay to do a job they’re already by doing comes off as a selfish money grab by those pilots that doesn’t benefit anyone but the ones already doing the job. If people think your jobs sucks, you taking money of their pockets and giving it to yourself doesn’t make your job suck any less. It just makes people want to watch you choke on your crew meal more because you’re an *******. You’re job is still going to suck after you’re dead, and they’re still not going to upgrade.
Narrowbody Captains are saying paying themselves more will get people to upgrade like them. The target audience for upgrades is saying fix work rules/QOL. The target audience has a better idea of what’s needed for them to fill the gaps.
Either way, this is just speculation for sport. At the end of they day we’re going to just have to wait to see what is in the TA, vote, and accept the results.
02-07-2023, 11:27 AM
#117
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,361
Then what number is the tipping point? (All my numbers are purely hypothetical.) Because that is how supply & demand works.
02-07-2023, 06:31 PM
#118
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: 756 Left Side
Posts: 1,629
It is interesting that just 2+ years ago there was this big push to do things that were never done before.. ie, the CoVid LOA and changing up how we view seniority and pay.
Now, fast forward and there's uproar from some on here with regards to talking about a different percentage ratio from FO to Capt.
When up look at 2yr NB Capt to 3yr NB Capt, the raise is not even 1%. A jump of $2.16!
Our PayRates jump based on the Year, not so much as longevity. Biggest jumps are from going from the right seat to the left seat of your current equipment.
One thing that WOULD be interesting, would be a no **** survey from the FO side as to WHY pilots are forgoing the upgrade. Probably would be very telling.
And Yes, it won't be just one reason.. probably the 3 we keep talking about on this thread.
Motch
02-07-2023, 07:03 PM
#119
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 2,525
Either way, the horse is dead.
02-07-2023, 07:20 PM
#120
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2021
Posts: 390
The assumption that it comes at the cost of the FOs is where communication is being lost. I don’t want to rob Peter to pay Paul, but I believe we could dig up a little extra for CAs if we came at the company from the right angle. Unfortunately it’s probably a non-starter for enough people that it isn’t worth pursuing.
If you would vote for say 25%, but not 30/25, ask yourself if you’re being logical or emotional.
If you would vote for say 25%, but not 30/25, ask yourself if you’re being logical or emotional.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
