LXJET 70+ seat rates out

[COOPERVANE]

Fully expect the company to schedule RR until the night before that changes (if it actually happens) Then watch the operation fall apart within a day.

I would bet a years pay on that EXACT scenario. Additionally, we will have to argue with those idiots for a month after it goes into affect.

What am I thinking?
It'll take Longer than that.....I still argue about 16 hours max duty with them occasionally and EVERY summer.

 

[Oakum_Boy]

I still argue about 16 hours max duty with them occasionally and EVERY summer.

But but but......you're legal to start, legal to finish! Call your chief pilot

 

[goahead]

But but but......you're legal to start, legal to finish! Call your chief pilot

Whatever have him call me if you disagree, click

 

[JustaNumber]

Per the ASA MEC, the latest details of the contract amendment are out for the LXJT guys. It includes this gem:

Common Variant

o Any aircraft granted a common type certificate (ex. CRJ-200, CRJ-700, CRJ-900) will be considered a single type for filling of vacancies.

o Common Variant Compensation

§ Hourly pay rates will be determined by seniority

§ Pilots will be grouped in equal percentage to the distribution of aircraft types, with the senior pilots receiving higher pay rates.

§ EXAMPLE: The Company operates a common-variant fleet consisting of 5 CRJ-200s, 10 CRJ-700s and 5 CRJ-900s. 100 Captains and 100 First Officers are assigned to this fleet. Because 75% of the fleet is covered under the 51-90 seat pay table and 25% is covered under the 41-50 seat pay table, the senior 75% of the Captains and First Officers will be paid at the 51-90 seat rate and the junior 25% will be paid at the 41-50 seat rate.

§ The pilot will be paid based on his seniority and there will be no direct connection between the variant flown and the rate received.

So, if this BS were forced on the LASA side later (since there is now precedent), if you were the 75th pilot on the CR2/7/9, you would get the higher pay rate on all aircraft you flew, but if you were the 76th pilot, you would get the lower pay rate on ALL aircraft you flew (even though you are memorizing more info, flying larger aircraft perhaps all the time, and generally giving huge cost savings to the company). Talk about arbitrary injustice! I would vote NO! to the whole contract over that part alone.

 

[CFIT]

Isn't there language in the Transition Agreement that stipulates contract development by the either party be transparent?

Why is this news to LASA?

 

[Nevets]

Per the ASA MEC, the latest details of the contract amendment are out for the LXJT guys. It includes this gem:



So, if this BS were forced on the LASA side later (since there is now precedent), if you were the 75th pilot on the CR2/7/9, you would get the higher pay rate on all aircraft you flew, but if you were the 76th pilot, you would get the lower pay rate on ALL aircraft you flew (even though you are memorizing more info, flying larger aircraft perhaps all the time, and generally giving huge cost savings to the company). Talk about arbitrary injustice! I would vote NO! to the whole contract over that part alone.

By the way, this is what Eagle agreed to in their new contract. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with one rate to fly all aircraft in the joint contract.

 

[COOPERVANE]

Well, there ya go. I now have no desire to complete this merger.

I used to be in favor of SLI

Keep us separate. I'm sure the LXJT group feels the same way.

 

[OCP]

By the way, this is what Eagle agreed to in their new contract. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with one rate to fly all aircraft in the joint contract.

Huh? This from you with all the "no concessions till we die" attitude. What is this all about?

 

[Oakum_Boy]

The tune changed very quickly indeed. I really wonder:

Asking about Ipads in the arbitration,
Not seemingly concerned that PBS was back-doored that way,
Guys already peeved about the Smartpref awards,
Discussing dual-qual unsolicitedly,
Not upset over $2 vs 20%....

I could go on...

Question is, what kind of back-stabbing, back-door politics is going on behind the scenes?

Something is off here

 

[Nevets]

Huh? This from you with all the "no concessions till we die" attitude. What is this all about?

Well, I never said I would vote for it. Its just that nothing would surprise me at this point.

 

[JustaNumber]

The way they've structured the "common variant compensation," it is nothing more than a B scale for wages. Think about it--a large number of guys will end up flying 90-seat aircraft for 50-seat wages, and every new hire will end up flying the largest RJs for much less than the majority of pilots on the property. THIS IS A B-SCALE!!! ALPA pilots fought major battles (like the United strike of 1985) to avoid this, and xjet somehow now has this?!? Management needs to know that THIS WILL NOT FLY.

 

[ASApuppy]

There will also be guys making 90 seat pay to fly the 50. Consider it a pay raise to make "Senior Capt". For every pilot on the 70 that gets a pay cut their will be a senior pilot on the 50 getting a pay raise.

 

[rjacobs]

We(LXJT) will NEVER fly a common variant under this arbitrated award IMO. The only one that is out there currently is the CRJ2/7/9 and I highly doubt that the LXJT side will EVER see those airplanes on our property, especially the CRJ2.

What "common variant" does the ERJ135/140/145 have that is over 50 seats? none. So common variant doesnt apply.

If we get CRJ7/9's and we have NO CRJ2's than common variant doesnt apply.

The EMB 170/175/190 has no common variant under 50 seats, so again the common variant clause doesnt apply.

I just dont see management shifting old ass CRJ2's over to the legacy XJT operation because it does them no good financially since our total 50 seat compensation is much greater than the LASA 50 seat compensation.

 

[rjacobs]

There will also be guys making 90 seat pay to fly the 50. Consider it a pay raise to make "Senior Capt". For every pilot on the 70 that gets a pay cut their will be a senior pilot on the 50 getting a pay raise.

Like I just posted, if we have no equipment on property that hits the "common variant" clause, which I doubt we will ever see, than this clause is basically null and void and will never be in effect.

If we get 170/175/190 common variant doesnt apply and those guys will ALL make the extra $2.

If we get 700/900 and have NO 200 on property(which I dont see management shifting to us anyway and I dont think they can) than common variant doesnt apply and all 700/900 guys get the $2.

I just dont see a situation where there will be guys flying the EMB145 and getting the 51+ seat pay while there are guys on the 51+ stuff getting paid 50 seat pay since the EMB145 has NO common variant above 50 seats and I just dont see management shifting CRJ200's over to us.

I still think ALL new flying that is in the CRJ will be going to the LASA side and the only new flying that will possibly come to the LXJT side would be EMB170/175/190 flying.

 

[JustaNumber]

We(LXJT) will NEVER fly a common variant under this arbitrated award IMO. The only one that is out there currently is the CRJ2/7/9 and I highly doubt that the LXJT side will EVER see those airplanes on our property, especially the CRJ2.

Are you forgetting that "your property" is in the middle of a merger?

What you are missing is the concept of precedent. Let's say the merger of LXJT and LASA goes to an arbitrator. He looks at the most recent contract involving common variants, and figures that's now industry standard. Wa-la...you're now flying a 90-seat RJ for 50-seat wages.

Or let's say they pull a MAIR, and cook the books enough to funnel all profits to Inc. and declare that XJET is bankrupt. Again, a judge now looks at precedent, and declares that the company needs this to regain profitability.

I hate the concept of precedent, but unfortunately it is a huge deal in the airline contract game. So it's foolish to be shortsighted about setting new precedents, saying it could never really apply to us. Ask yourself, why would they want it if it doesn't apply?!?

 

[Nevets]

Are you forgetting that "your property" is in the middle of a merger?

What you are missing is the concept of precedent. Let's say the merger of LXJT and LASA goes to an arbitrator. He looks at the most recent contract involving common variants, and figures that's now industry standard. Wa-la...you're now flying a 90-seat RJ for 50-seat wages.

Or let's say they pull a MAIR, and cook the books enough to funnel all profits to Inc. and declare that XJET is bankrupt. Again, a judge now looks at precedent, and declares that the company needs this to regain profitability.

I hate the concept of precedent, but unfortunately it is a huge deal in the airline contract game. So it's foolish to be shortsighted about setting new precedents, saying it could never really apply to us. Ask yourself, why would they want it if it doesn't apply?!?

There can be no arbitrator for the joint contract. But your concept of precedence is probably why that language is in the new aircraft arbitration. As for bankruptcy, I don't know. Seems like they can now bid competitively for these new aircraft after this arbitration ruling and make a little money.

 

[duc driver]

Or let's say they pull a MAIR, and cook the books enough to funnel all profits to Inc. and declare that XJET is bankrupt. Again, a judge now looks at precedent, and declares that the company needs this to regain profitability.

I don't think this can happen based on how Inc is set up.

 

[rjacobs]

Are you forgetting that "your property" is in the middle of a merger?

What you are missing is the concept of precedent. Let's say the merger of LXJT and LASA goes to an arbitrator. He looks at the most recent contract involving common variants, and figures that's now industry standard. Wa-la...you're now flying a 90-seat RJ for 50-seat wages.

Or let's say they pull a MAIR, and cook the books enough to funnel all profits to Inc. and declare that XJET is bankrupt. Again, a judge now looks at precedent, and declares that the company needs this to regain profitability.

I hate the concept of precedent, but unfortunately it is a huge deal in the airline contract game. So it's foolish to be shortsighted about setting new precedents, saying it could never really apply to us. Ask yourself, why would they want it if it doesn't apply?!?

What the hope is that once(I guess I should say IF) we get a JCBA that this language will be cleaned up and gone. Our JCBA can NOT go to an arbitrator. And Inc. doesnt differentiate between profits(or loss's) on their 10k's from XJT or SKW, its all one big pot.

I dont know who requested this or if it was requested at all and the arbitrator simply did it. This arbitration was an "industry average" arbitration. I think Eagle is doing this percentage thing, I dont know if anybody else is. Is Mesa? Is Pinnacle? Does Republic?

 

[Whydoitry]

I think Eagle's is different in that they have pay based on seniority despite equipment, same as UPS. Saves the company training costs and pilots don't have to chase bigger airframes to make more money, good for everyone. This arbitration is, as stated above, for similar types.

 

[Oakum_Boy]

I can't wait for my 'Senior Pilot' $2.00 pay rise. Just like UPS, is that right?