Search

Notices

Self funding TA?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 01-04-2016, 05:49 AM
  #131  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
Default

Originally Posted by gettinbumped
I keep hearing this, but all this phenomenal negotiating environment has produced is 2 failed TA's (DAL and SWA), no TA after several years in section 6 (UPS), and 1 contract that contained several give backs (FEDEX).
So under the greatest time of prosperity in the history of the airline industry I ask if not now, when is there a better time to negotiate?

Keep in mind, we have something the company wants with airplanes ordered. Something that caused the company to approach us. Delta already gave up that leverage.

If not now, when?
SpecialTracking is offline  
Old 01-04-2016, 09:52 AM
  #132  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: 737 capt
Posts: 335
Default

For the no voters that haven't figured it out yet, the extension is the leverage. The company has no intention of signing a new deal with pilots for at least 3 years. They are paying for peace and breathing room from the pilots while they deal with all the other issues they have facing them, IT, FA/Mechanic contracts, etc. I tried to point this out a few weeks ago on the other forum but that is crazy talk over there.

We turn this deal down and the leverage is gone. But we will be able to be ****ed off for the next three years, put our hats on and march around and inflate some giant rats.
ron kent is offline  
Old 01-04-2016, 10:38 AM
  #133  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,266
Default

Originally Posted by Andy



This sudden concern that the CS-100 rate is somehow B scale (it's not B scale; that argument requires quite a bit of linguistic gymnastics to mislabel it B scale) is just more politics in an effort to torpedo the TA. A B Scale is where employees for the same company are working under different pay rates for the same seat/equipment/longevity. If one were to adopt this flawed definition of B scale, then the 737-700, A319, and CS300 are B scale because they pay less than the 737-500 when adjusted for whatever narrow measure you'd like to use.

I just can't believe that the NO crowd is using this as an excuse to vote no. We finally have a chance to stop mainline retreat and now you guys want to fumble the ball. Do what Joe Pisarcik should have done and take a knee on the CS100 pay rate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlmUw2zcc8Q
The 500 was on property only a 2-3 years ago, several other airplanes on there are not and won't be here either yet we compare ourselves to them all the time (Dal 717 rates for instance). Make the capt rates, highest FO rate + some, I'll loose some of my heart burn over it.

UAL can buy these airplanes whenever they like, they don't need this TA to do it. Voting yes because you think the content of the TA is better than what we could do in Sec 6, not because of speculation and hope. Hope isn't a strategy, like hoping DAL ratifies before 1/2018.

Originally Posted by ron kent
For the no voters that haven't figured it out yet, the extension is the leverage. The company has no intention of signing a new deal with pilots for at least 3 years. They are paying for peace and breathing room from the pilots while they deal with all the other issues they have facing them, IT, FA/Mechanic contracts, etc. I tried to point this out a few weeks ago on the other forum but that is crazy talk over there.

We turn this deal down and the leverage is gone. But we will be able to be ****ed off for the next three years, put our hats on and march around and inflate some giant rats.
So with all that leverage, we got 13%... That's what you're saying right?
Grumble is offline  
Old 01-04-2016, 10:44 AM
  #134  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
Default

Originally Posted by ron kent
For the no voters that haven't figured it out yet, the extension is the leverage. The company has no intention of signing a new deal with pilots for at least 3 years. They are paying for peace and breathing room from the pilots while they deal with all the other issues they have facing them, IT, FA/Mechanic contracts, etc. I tried to point this out a few weeks ago on the other forum but that is crazy talk over there.

We turn this deal down and the leverage is gone. But we will be able to be ****ed off for the next three years, put our hats on and march around and inflate some giant rats.
While I agree that the company would like peace and a known cost structure going forward, how do you know they have every intention of delaying a contract for three years? Wadr this is the mentality that has been laid upon us over the last 13 years and if we continue with this train of thought, our future contracts will go nowhere.
SpecialTracking is offline  
Old 01-04-2016, 11:24 AM
  #135  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: guppy CA
Posts: 5,171
Default

Originally Posted by Grumble
The 500 was on property only a 2-3 years ago, several other airplanes on there are not and won't be here either yet we compare ourselves to them all the time (Dal 717 rates for instance). Make the capt rates, highest FO rate + some, I'll loose some of my heart burn over it.

UAL can buy these airplanes whenever they like, they don't need this TA to do it. Voting yes because you think the content of the TA is better than what we could do in Sec 6, not because of speculation and hope. Hope isn't a strategy, like hoping DAL ratifies before 1/2018.
You want Capt rates higher than which FO rate? A350? 747? 737-500? How about the current CRJ900 Capt rates? Are those OK to be below current 737-500FO rates? Because they're $3/hr lower at the 12 year point.

Let's step back for a moment and ask a really important question here. Is there any scenario where you envision yourself flying a CS-100?

I'd love to say that I don't see any scenario, but all it would take for me to either be furloughed again or flying a CS-100 is another age change to 70 combined with an economic downturn. Having been through that twice, I'd prefer to be flying a NSNB jet with mainline instead of on the street again looking for a job.

So to me, it's not only about whether this TA is better than what we could do in Section 6, it is also a bit of insurance for those of us on the bottom third of the list. I don't view the CS-100 pay rates as B Scale or even concessionary.

I am also very concerned about the continual mainline retreat from flying smaller equipment. We need to stop this by getting a NSNB on property. If the pay rates are out of line on the CS-100, EMB190, ERJ900 or whatever NSNB is chosen, we can get them fixed. But fumbling the opportunity to capture some small gauge flying on mainline because the pay's too low on one airframe that's not on property is shortsighted and I suspect that most of us on the bottom third of the list feel the same way. For some of us, it's not a comparison of retired 737-500 rates to CS-100 rates; it's a comparison of mainline CS-100 rates to starting regional wages.
Andy is offline  
Old 01-04-2016, 11:38 AM
  #136  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: 777 CA
Posts: 1,049
Default

Originally Posted by Grumble
Run your math against the 500... Which is pay banded with the 700 and by your math should've paid about 15% less.
How about run the math against other contracts?

American 1/16 pay rate for group 1 (CS series and EMBs) $153/hr
New TA for same a/c $185

Just saying, nothing "B" about that scale. And don't forget AMR gets 0 for PS either.
UALinIAH is offline  
Old 01-04-2016, 11:58 AM
  #137  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: 737 capt
Posts: 335
Default

Originally Posted by SpecialTracking
While I agree that the company would like peace and a known cost structure going forward, how do you know they have every intention of delaying a contract for three years? Wadr this is the mentality that has been laid upon us over the last 13 years and if we continue with this train of thought, our future contracts will go nowhere.
Nobody knows anything about the future, you may be willing to bet $120,000+ on an unknown, I am not.
ron kent is offline  
Old 01-04-2016, 12:03 PM
  #138  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
Default

Originally Posted by ron kent
Nobody knows anything about the future, you may be willing to bet $120,000+ on an unknown, I am not.
It's worth a lot more than that over the course of the next two contracts.
SpecialTracking is offline  
Old 01-04-2016, 02:18 PM
  #139  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Dave Fitzgerald's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: 777
Posts: 2,173
Default

It's all well and good to want RJ rates commensurate with our pay scales, but, and I really don't know, I'm asking, how does the CS100 rate in the TA compare to current Express rates?

That is the competition we will have in that segment. We have always said we wanted them on the property, now at what price?
Dave Fitzgerald is offline  
Old 01-04-2016, 02:37 PM
  #140  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Default

Originally Posted by Dave Fitzgerald
It's all well and good to want RJ rates commensurate with our pay scales, but, and I really don't know, I'm asking, how does the CS100 rate in the TA compare to current Express rates?

That is the competition we will have in that segment. We have always said we wanted them on the property, now at what price?
The CS100 rates absolutely murder any Express rate at any carrier for any plane. By like $60 an hour.
gettinbumped is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
kc135driver
Money Talk
4
03-23-2011 10:37 AM
JoeMerchant
Regional
96
10-22-2009 08:17 PM
klsfdx
Cargo
10
03-08-2009 07:02 PM
LeoSV
Hangar Talk
0
06-27-2007 04:59 AM
SikPilot
Major
1
03-29-2007 03:06 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices