ACA, should I go?

[RichO]

Like I said, it's just some food for thought from a 3rd party source (which usually isn't completely correct)......my whole point, both companies seem to be pretty good and fairly equal........and I did invite those who actually have the contracts handy to make corrections in the information I posted.....

 

[Anaconda]

those numbers from air inc are correct for comair.

i had a feeling the numbers for air whisky might be old as i know they exceeded what we received on our new contract (in pay at least). in fact, if memory serves, AW's old starting CRJ pay was higher than our new, "industry standard" pay rate. 11 days is definitely not "industry standard".

OH is also paid "greater of" on a "lookback", which is a controversial (sp) subject for some. and yes, 4:20 min day is correct.

straight out of the book:


C. For each bid period, a pilot will be credited and paid, at the applicable rate of pay set
forth in paragraph A.1., above, the greater of the following:
1. Flight time, including any additional pay credits set forth in paragraph D., below
and displacement pay as set forth in paragraph E., below. Flight time will be
calculated by flight segment, using scheduled or actual block-to-block time,
whichever is greater.
2. One (1) minute of credit for each two (2) minutes of duty time calculated on a bid
period basis. Except as provided in paragraph E.2., below, this provision will not
apply to time spent in training.
3. One (1) minute of credit for each three and three-quarters (3¾) minutes of trip
time calculated on a bid period basis. Except as provided in paragraph E.2.,
below, this provision will not apply to time spent in training.
4. An average of four hours and twenty minutes (4:20) for each duty day calculated
on a bid period basis. Except as provided in paragraph E.2., below, this
provision will not apply to time spent in training.

 

[RichO]

wow, they keep track in minutes.......thanks Anaconda for some clarification on that......I had a feeling, my source was a little old......I'd be curious as so some AirWis info, if anyone can shed some light......

 

[rightrudder]

Here's some air wis numbers:

Pay: greater of: 1 hour of pay for 2 hours duty
1 hour of pay for 3.5 hours trip
min 3 hours per day
actual flight time
scheduled flt time
100% for deadhead or any cancellation
150% for extention or draft, flying on days off

75 hour per month guarantee

Rates: (as of Aug. 1, 2002)

FO: 1st year 21.75 hourly 328; 24/hr. CRJ or 146
2nd year 27.17/hr 328; 35.01 CRJ; 42.01 146

CA: 2nd year 45.29/328; 58.35CRJ
10 yr: 59.55/328; 76.74/CRJ; 92.09/146
max: 67.08/328; 91.97/CRJ; 120.59/146 2002 rates

Per Diem: 1.50 per hour domestic

vacation: 1 week per year first year, 2 weeks per year year 2-4; 3 weeks 5-9 years; 4 weeks 10-18 years; 5 weeks

sick leave: 3.5 hours/month (equiv. of 1 day of pay per month)

Time off: min 12 days per month


That's probably more info than anyone wants, so i'll quit now. Just some basic numbers.

RR

 

[DarnNearaJet]

ACA has built itself completely on the foundation of UAL and DAL. What do you think will happen to you when either of those two shift the majority of flying back to the mainline in a year or two? If anything ever happened to either of those two carriers, ACA would have some serious troubles.

A dose of reality, please. From a sheer probablity standpoint, I'd say USAirways will fold years before Delta or UAL.

It's a matter of hedging bets.

 

[Beavis]

Truchot,

Im senior to you at PDT and I am looking to bail too. There is no future at PDT. Upgrade will be 5+ years again, if ever! Our future holds returning of ac to lessors, mainline pilots stealing our jobs, and possible bankrupcy, sales, or liquidations!! AAAAHHH

GET OUT IF YOU CAN!

 

[FlyboyPhil]

Reality Check.... part 2

"what happens to ACA when UAL and Delta get strong again and take their flying back. "

Thats when you get a job at UAL or Delta... DUH!


Sorry... it seems so obvious to me.. had to be sarcastic about it..
Good luck all.. hoping to get a call from ACA soon...

 

[N813CA]

FlyboyPhil

DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

That is great for the guys in the top 1/3 but what about the last 500 pilots that are being hired right now to just cover the required flying. Also, does ACA have a flow up contract with them??? Please let me know if they do.


DUH

 

[BlueRidger]

Another dose of reality. ACA is not going away anytime soon no matter what changes with mainline flying.

Even If UAL and DAL took back all of the mainline flyng that was transferred to us in the last two years, most of our flying would still be intact as we have been flying those routes for so long. You just cannot economically run a 737 between BUF and IAD. Compund this by Southwest flying a 737 between BUF and BWI at far less cost. The a turboprop or an RJ is the only way to compete as well as draw that feed at a profit. Second the RJ is not going to dissapear. It will be used for much more than mainline replacement. AMR went to all RJ feed in ORD so UAL must do the same. The RJ actually is a really good tool to increase frequency. Increased frequency means more chances to catch the last minute business traveller whose meeting ran late and needs to catch the next flight. It is this kind of traveller who generates the most profit.

The RJ is also good at developing new long and thin routes or reesablishing ones that were abandoned a long time ago. Such as our service to MHT from IAD. Airports like MHT will continue to grow as companies like Southwest and Pan Am move into them and develop them into better recognized airports. Why not take advantage of this and add RJ service to these airports to benefit from the increased passengers generated at these airports. It is the best way to compete against the low fare carriers.

Hub bypass routes is another good use of the RJ. If you want to go from JAX to IAD you can go on DAL thru Atlanta or CVG but with more spokes from you hub you give passengers the optionm to bypass the hub and go straight to their destination. DAL even does this to themselves by flying an RJ from DFW to GSO instead of routing passengers thru ATL as they used to.

Even more importantly is the sad truth is that mainline is not going to take up all of its old flying. I really hope mainline does take back all its old flying and morebecause it means more and better job opportunities for us.

So the reality is that the RJ is WAY too useful to give up. Further RJ's are still too scarce for the mainline partners to give up any of its RJ possessing affiliates.

ACA has plenty of cash on hand, is profitable every quarter and even if there is no future growth our contracts guarentee a certain profit for at least the next 7 years from our mainline partners. Worse comes to worse, ACA has never been afraid to strike out on its own that is why ACA is ahead of the Game in the RJ race compared to most regionals. ACA is not going away anytime soon.

 

[20sx]

I see and hear where the scope has been lifted for RJ's at United Express carriers. Is this true? I thought the United pilots still had to vote on this. Could mean lots more RJ's at ACA and maybe explain all the hiring.

Thoughts, comments, questions???

 

[BlueRidger]

The only change in scope is basically a raise from the 60 RJ's that were allotted by the old contract to about 240 or so in the UAX system. This basically covers what ACA Skywest and Air Wisconsin have already ordered and have firm contracts with UAL for. 121 for ACA , 60 for Skywest and 50-something for Air Wis. UAL would have a hard time getting out of these so it was a good bargaining chip in the negotiations with the pilots. Furthermore, I believe that this contract is not yet ratified by ALPA.

 

[Beechnut]

The ERP (Economic Recovery Program) has NOT been approved by the pilot group YET. The road shows are planned and a vote will follow. From what I am told, the pilot group initially seems to be displeased with the company's offerings. There is a chance it won't pass.

As of right now there is no change to the scope.

By the way, it's 75 firm orders for CL-65's for AirWis and another option for 75 after that.

S.