Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Alaska contract
- Thread starter Alaska Flyer
- Start date
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Singlecoil
I don't reMember
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2002
- Posts
- 1,273
Old School 737
NG's now and it is A OK!!
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Posts
- 986
ImbracableCrunk
Unregistered Un-User
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2003
- Posts
- 1,481
Mamma
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2005
- Posts
- 2,802
I agree FO pay should be higher. I think FO pay should have been returned to the pre-Kasher ratio. It was foolish for the negotiating committee to not do this. But, before we get all hung up on pay, I think we need to calculate the entire package and where that puts us in relation to SWA or anyone else. Pay alone is not everything in relation to the overall package.
Half of One Cornerstone TA. No, nada, zero Scope, Work Rules that benefit the company, no change in Benefits, and no change in Retirement.... so how does it pass the MEC with a 6-0? WTFO!
Anyone, especially FOs, who vote this thing is either extremely retarded or they are seriously broke for cash, in which case you are retarded. If voted in, watch for more stagnation and more outsourcing of flying.
Old School 737
NG's now and it is A OK!!
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Posts
- 986
In the middle of a four day and here are some things I have heard in the crew room along with my commentary.
"scope clauses don't work, so why waste time negotiating for it."
-10 years ago very few airlines had strong scope clauses which allowed for the current state of our industry. Today they are a key part of any contract and we should be learning from the past at other airlines to strengthen our future. And if your opinion is anything written in section 1 is useless, why bother with sections 2-31?
"this is a slap in the face."
-and I felt it.
"the preamble to the contract was rewritten to protect our scope."
- no, if it were written to protect our scope then it would have been ten pages longer and placed in section 1 entitled scope. It would also avoid words like "should" and instead use words like "will" and "must"
"if the company needs to fly 100 seaters then that is a business decision. Not all routes can support a 737."
- I agree. If the company sees a need to fly 100 seat aircraft then they can purchase the planes and staff them with Alaska pilots. This TA allows them to outsource the flying which is unacceptable.
"I don't think our negotiating committee even knows what FOs at other airlines make."
-I agree, or if they do, they do not care.
"we need to get a new negotiating committee and dump the MEC if they approved this crap."
-If they are unwilling to fight for a good TA for every dues paying member and merely settle on what benefits them, then yes.
"It is hard to pass up another $25,000 a year."
-Not when you should be making an extra $35,000
"I think we deserve more, but I will probably vote yes."
-I don't understand why you accept being undervalued.
"I hope their is a '**** no' button to vote."
- second
"remember to factor in our profit sharing as another 5-8%"
-This is a bonus and fluctuates. We have another vague statement of "targets" 5% in our contract. Nothing is guaranteed.
"profit sharing does not count as we do not control the formula or the profits."
-I agree. We are hourly unionized employees operating under a CBA. We need to negotiate our CBA. Nowhere in our CBA does it talk about a minimum bonus, or spell out how it will be calculated, or any special accounting practices that cannot be factored in by the company. The PBP has been good to us, I hope that continues, but my pay rates can't factor in a bonus that may or may not be their in 2-3 years.
"eventually you wil be a captain and so you have to look at the top captain scale."
-for the next five years I will be an FO and this is a 5 year TA. So I am going to vote based on how this specifically affects me and my family.
"scope clauses don't work, so why waste time negotiating for it."
-10 years ago very few airlines had strong scope clauses which allowed for the current state of our industry. Today they are a key part of any contract and we should be learning from the past at other airlines to strengthen our future. And if your opinion is anything written in section 1 is useless, why bother with sections 2-31?
"this is a slap in the face."
-and I felt it.
"the preamble to the contract was rewritten to protect our scope."
- no, if it were written to protect our scope then it would have been ten pages longer and placed in section 1 entitled scope. It would also avoid words like "should" and instead use words like "will" and "must"
"if the company needs to fly 100 seaters then that is a business decision. Not all routes can support a 737."
- I agree. If the company sees a need to fly 100 seat aircraft then they can purchase the planes and staff them with Alaska pilots. This TA allows them to outsource the flying which is unacceptable.
"I don't think our negotiating committee even knows what FOs at other airlines make."
-I agree, or if they do, they do not care.
"we need to get a new negotiating committee and dump the MEC if they approved this crap."
-If they are unwilling to fight for a good TA for every dues paying member and merely settle on what benefits them, then yes.
"It is hard to pass up another $25,000 a year."
-Not when you should be making an extra $35,000
"I think we deserve more, but I will probably vote yes."
-I don't understand why you accept being undervalued.
"I hope their is a '**** no' button to vote."
- second
"remember to factor in our profit sharing as another 5-8%"
-This is a bonus and fluctuates. We have another vague statement of "targets" 5% in our contract. Nothing is guaranteed.
"profit sharing does not count as we do not control the formula or the profits."
-I agree. We are hourly unionized employees operating under a CBA. We need to negotiate our CBA. Nowhere in our CBA does it talk about a minimum bonus, or spell out how it will be calculated, or any special accounting practices that cannot be factored in by the company. The PBP has been good to us, I hope that continues, but my pay rates can't factor in a bonus that may or may not be their in 2-3 years.
"eventually you wil be a captain and so you have to look at the top captain scale."
-for the next five years I will be an FO and this is a 5 year TA. So I am going to vote based on how this specifically affects me and my family.
Old School 737
NG's now and it is A OK!!
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Posts
- 986
AKMD80GUY
Angle Lakes Bitch
- Joined
- May 3, 2005
- Posts
- 200
As a senior FO who will take the upgrade in the next year I can tell you this is unacceptable. We have stagnated in our careers and are still living under Kasher imposed losses weather it is pay, QOL etc...
Look, unless you are a senior captain this is not a good contract. I can't think of a good reason for anyone hired post 1995 to vote yes. Take a look at what has happened at the other large airlines that have had weak scope. If we don't learn from them we have no one else to blame but ourselves. Evaluate this TA based on the 4 cornerstones and tell me if its an improvement.
Look, unless you are a senior captain this is not a good contract. I can't think of a good reason for anyone hired post 1995 to vote yes. Take a look at what has happened at the other large airlines that have had weak scope. If we don't learn from them we have no one else to blame but ourselves. Evaluate this TA based on the 4 cornerstones and tell me if its an improvement.
If the union and the company are trying to "sell" us this deal, the "no" votes need to be polite and vocal in explaining our side. We can't just let someone make a comment that is selfish or untrue without challenging them and trying to explain our position. We must be engaged, as this is our future.
ImbracableCrunk
Unregistered Un-User
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2003
- Posts
- 1,481
I'm not looking to see upgrade for a long time. Longer if we give all of these efficiencies. FO pay needs to be bigger.
Hotels needs to go from "first class" to 4- or 5-star.
Unless I hear some really creative interpretations, the scope language is a joke. Any Boeing order we have as of signing? Pfffft. That leaves open the door to just about anything. Now boarding, Alaska International with Dreamliner service to Tokyo!
Hotels needs to go from "first class" to 4- or 5-star.
Unless I hear some really creative interpretations, the scope language is a joke. Any Boeing order we have as of signing? Pfffft. That leaves open the door to just about anything. Now boarding, Alaska International with Dreamliner service to Tokyo!
The other airlines have had weak scope and look at what happened. Imagine what would have happened if there were NO scope. The scheduling section of our contract does not prevent them from violating the scheduling section of our contract...therefore we should have no scheduling section of our contract. Really? It's a wonder some of these guys can
Make it to work at all...and eat dinner in a public place without drueling all over themselves.
Don Carty (AA CEO) back in the day said in no uncertain terms that his vision for AMR was to have Eagle flying 100% of the domestic NB and have AA mainline flying only WB international. Too bad AA's scope got in the way.
I may have been more sympathetic to the argument 10 years ago, but the big 3 have started to put that horse back in the barn and the big 3 will be flying the 100 seat RJs when they come online.
Pathetic.
Make it to work at all...and eat dinner in a public place without drueling all over themselves.
Don Carty (AA CEO) back in the day said in no uncertain terms that his vision for AMR was to have Eagle flying 100% of the domestic NB and have AA mainline flying only WB international. Too bad AA's scope got in the way.
I may have been more sympathetic to the argument 10 years ago, but the big 3 have started to put that horse back in the barn and the big 3 will be flying the 100 seat RJs when they come online.
Pathetic.
You almost made me puke. How do you figure it's okay to be the lowest paid 737 pilots in 5 years while we work for the most profitable company? Behind companies that were bankrupt just a few years ago. If someone young enough to be on the Internet feels like this...we are truly hosed.
Neither pay nor scope is near anything they need to be.
Last edited:
BarbrPole2theOM
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Posts
- 74
AKMD80GUY
Angle Lakes Bitch
- Joined
- May 3, 2005
- Posts
- 200
I chose my words poorly. My intent is that I can live with the pay but scope is a must!
kingair1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2004
- Posts
- 79
I talked to a friend at SkyWest and says that they got some CRJ-900's they were sub-leasing to a Vietnam airline that are coming back. SkyWest is in talks with Alaska to fly those 900's.
Scope please !
S
Snapshot
CRJ-900, EMB-175, Mitsubishi whatever.
They've got HUNDREDS of Scope Busting airframes in the pipe and their foot in the door. More airframes than YOU have. Think about it.
Storm clouds are gathering, will you be smart enough to open your umbrella?
The scope language should say "No business with Skywest".
They've got HUNDREDS of Scope Busting airframes in the pipe and their foot in the door. More airframes than YOU have. Think about it.
Storm clouds are gathering, will you be smart enough to open your umbrella?
The scope language should say "No business with Skywest".
Last edited:
Old School 737
NG's now and it is A OK!!
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Posts
- 986
Old School 737
NG's now and it is A OK!!
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Posts
- 986
Well we need specific seat / airplane size requirements ... Not just this or that company .. Cause next week xto enterprise airlines will start up and...
S
Snapshot
Of course. I'm just trying to get the point across that the deal is already done with Skywest. Ink is dry.
The second a contract that doesn't stop it is signed, they will take all of your flying.
If they want RJ's. Fine. They can pay YOU to drive them.
Old School 737
NG's now and it is A OK!!
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Posts
- 986
I hear ya but .. We have nothing stoping it now ... So they can do it yesterday if they want ..
Singlecoil
I don't reMember
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2002
- Posts
- 1,273
So I'm a little baffled by the argument that our pay should be equivalent to 737 pay at American or Delta, or United. When a pilot retires at those airlines, that triggers how many training events? 6? 8? 10? When a pilot at Alaska retires, that triggers a brief upgrade training and a new hire training. What is the cost savings to Alaska for having a single fleet type with regards to pilot training? It is huge. Millions of dollars.
Is there any cost associated with having a single fleet type and who bears it? Let's see. A Delta or United or American pilot can choose to bid down to the lowly 737 and enjoy super seniority, but that pilot pays a price in pay. He or she trades pay for seniority.
At Alaska or Southwest, pilots don't have that option. You are stuck on that airframe and at that pay rate and the company reaps all the benefits of having a single fleet type.
For that reason, airlines with a single fleet type should expect to pay, and their pilots should demand, the highest pay in the industry for that equipment.
Delta management should be able to look at their pilots and say, "Well, you're not going to get Alaska pay on the 737 because that's the only airplane they have and their training costs are a fraction of ours."
Is there any cost associated with having a single fleet type and who bears it? Let's see. A Delta or United or American pilot can choose to bid down to the lowly 737 and enjoy super seniority, but that pilot pays a price in pay. He or she trades pay for seniority.
At Alaska or Southwest, pilots don't have that option. You are stuck on that airframe and at that pay rate and the company reaps all the benefits of having a single fleet type.
For that reason, airlines with a single fleet type should expect to pay, and their pilots should demand, the highest pay in the industry for that equipment.
Delta management should be able to look at their pilots and say, "Well, you're not going to get Alaska pay on the 737 because that's the only airplane they have and their training costs are a fraction of ours."
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
