ACA: No to Yes....

[pilotwannabe]

Yes the fo's will get a blended rate for aicraft 50 seats or more. THis is absolute crap and sets a very bad precedent. The company will want to do this for whatever larger aircraft we get. They will simply want to keep the blended rate and keep the captains happy by giving them a raise. It worked once why not do it again. This is one of biggest reasons why I voted no. This agreement sells out the fo's and junior guys no question about it. Again, it's bullsh*t too think captains get a raise for larger airplanes but fo's do not. Atleast give us a 2 or 3 percent bump and do not give me some chart crap that says I get paid 19% too much.

 

[46Driver]

Aren't there some companies (I heard UPS and Alaska) that don't care about aircraft size - just right / left seat and years of service (similiar to the military with rank and years of service?)

 

[pilotwannabe]

Yes but they also pay a decent wage. How can u even compare aca to ups or alaska? ACA is only developing a blended rate for fo's not captains. Seems kinda weird to me that only one group gets it but not the other.

 

[46Driver]

Maybe because I came from the military, I thought the whole civilian pay scale was strange and the UPS model much more simple and efficient. As for our case, I was talking to some other pilots and we agreed that one of the areas that we could become more efficient is to have 1 FO payscale. Just our opinion....

 

[pilotwannabe]

to be honest it's not a bad idea man.

 

[46Driver]

Everything has its pros and cons but we thought it would help out the J-41 & Dornier FO's (I am on the CRJ pay lock myself so I would probably lose).

The idea went along the lines of:
1) all FO's are paid the same.
2) the company hires according to aircraft and you are seat-locked for 2 or 3 years.
3) the FO is called by the company and has either the choice of going where assigned or waiting in a pool (with the loss of seniority) until the domicile he wants opens up.

The company saves in training costs while the FO gets the domicile he wants. Anyway, just an idea....

 

[surplus1]

As for our case, I was talking to some other pilots and we agreed that one of the areas that we could become more efficient is to have 1 FO payscale. Just our opinion....

Couldn't you also become "more efficient" (your way to spell cheap) by having 1 CA pay scale as well? If it hasn't occurred to you, the reason FO's will have a common pay scale and Captains will not, is because Captains run the show in your political wing and it was easier to cut somebody else's pay than it was to cut their own.

The real question you should be asking is wheter or not your company will continue to thrive without any pay cuts at all and whether or not it will do better with pay cuts.

Obviously the majority of you appear to believe the promises that you will do better if you cut your pay, and the threats that you will cease to exist if you do not.

Your answers to the question are the very reason that compensation in the regionals is what it is; too low. Looks like it is doomed to stay that way.

In the smarts contest it is clear as a bell who came away with the smarts and it wasn't pilots. Congratulations to management, they've won again.

(Of course you could prove me wrong by voting NO, but I wouldn't even bet a day's pay on that possibility.)

 

[46Driver]

If you take 6 CRJ FO's, 2 FRJ FO's, and 2 J-41's FO's (used as an example, the actual ratio is different) , sum their pay and then divide it equally, then the company is still paying the same amount of labor cost. The company saves in reduced training costs while the pilot group gets the preferred domicile.

As for what I believe:

1) The industry is in turmoil due to both the down economy as well as too much supply and not enough demand.

2) Our major partner - United - is in bankruptcy.

3) We are being whipsawed on line by line item expense by the BAIN corporation.

If any of those 3 points are wrong, I am sure you will correct them.