*New Jetblue Pay Rates*

[ualdriver]

The OP needs to edit his post to show PROPOSED rates. I'm sure our NC has some great PROPOSED rates here at UAL, too, but we all know how that goes.

And as A320drvr stated above, you guys can have the best rates in the world but they don't do a damn bit of good if Barger OK's the rates, stops all growth and/or sells airplanes, and outsources "big" airplane flying to some "alliance" and "little" airplane flying to Republic for "big" RJ's and Mesa for "little" RJ's. Ask me how I know! Learn from our mistakes!

 

[B6Busdriver]

The OP needs to edit his post to show PROPOSED rates. I'm sure our NC has some great PROPOSED rates here at UAL, too, but we all know how that goes.

And as A320drvr stated above, you guys can have the best rates in the world but they don't do a damn bit of good if Barger OK's the rates, stops all growth and/or sells airplanes, and outsources "big" airplane flying to some "alliance" and "little" airplane flying to Republic for "big" RJ's and Mesa for "little" RJ's. Ask me how I know! Learn from our mistakes!

Can I print this out and frame it so I can hang it in our crew lounge? Seriously.

 

[Dogwood]

The OP needs to edit his post to show PROPOSED rates. I'm sure our NC has some great PROPOSED rates here at UAL, too, but we all know how that goes.

And as A320drvr stated above, you guys can have the best rates in the world but they don't do a damn bit of good if Barger OK's the rates, stops all growth and/or sells airplanes, and outsources "big" airplane flying to some "alliance" and "little" airplane flying to Republic for "big" RJ's and Mesa for "little" RJ's. Ask me how I know! Learn from our mistakes!

I don't they will really want to do that. The company formed these committees to study the pay issues, and requested them to return with the results.

The company has already agreed to who we should compare our rates to (Peer set), and I believe that they agreed that it should be the average of those.

It's just math, so I don't see how they can debate the numbers on the 320. Now the 190 pay is different. We just used 90% of the 320 Capt Pay to calculate the 190. I don't know if that was agreed to, but that is how it was determined.

I guess we'll find out soon. The numbers should not be a surprise to management.

This is not a negotiation, so I doubt they will agree to the rates and work rules, then attempt to farm out the flying.

 

[najet]

Not surprisingly, less than 36 hours after the calculated "peer set" rates were made available to the pilot group, DB sends out the first of many "lowered expectations" e-mails.....

 

[FNG320]

These will be the rates the only issue that remains is where our premium pay trigger kicks in..

Currently all flying over 70 hrs pays 150% the new rates recommend a ceiling of 78-81 hrs.. I personally feel that our industry average rates should apply to 75 hrs with premium paid above that. That is a fair compromise that rewards pilots that fly extra.

Senior FO's here on the bus can credit 90-95 hrs per month and still manage 16-18 days off a month.

With new rates a 95hr credit 5yr fo will make:

$114,000 if trigger remains at 70 hrs
$107,000 if trigger goes to 80hrs

At our old rates that same fo is making $102,650

The largest issue at hand is work rules. They plan to implement industry standard duty and trip rigs 1.3

Eliminate our 13:30 rigs which are the west coast red eye 24 hr layover trips and implement a $13 hr night rig for any trip that departs or operates between 0100 and 0500

intl override $5 per hr capt and 3.70 per hr fo

Applying the proposed rigs to my may and june schedule I could expect to add approximately $600-$800 per month in pay to the above numbers.

First, I hope that they don't take your advise on the premium pay trip point. Premium pay trip point should remain at 70 hours. The whole idea of premium pay is that it is an incentive to fly more hours and thus reduce the number of pilots needed to operate the airline.

Second, this saves the company a lot of money, and we should benefit from that savings. The concept regardless of what base pay is set at is still the same. The company saves money and we should get some of it.

Third, no one should have to work 95 hour or work to get 95 hours of credit to survivie. Using such a high comparision is just a manipulation to to make it look better than it is (with 75 hour premium vs current 70 hour point). It is just spin when you use number like this.

Fourth, eliminating the 13:30 type rigged trips, reduces pilot compensation per trip by several hundred dollars. The night rig only compensate less than 1 hour of premium pay, while the eliminatin of the 13:30 rig eliminates 1.5-2.5 hours of pay. Not balanced and an overall reduction in pay ($200-$400 worth per trip and that includes the night rig!)

I fly lots of redeyes (which most JetBlue pilots avoid). Applications of the new rig system will reduce my pay as a 7yr A320 by several hundred dollars per month and no premium pay (using your trip point). I will get less hours/credit for working the same number of days/nights. Thanks but no thanks.

In addition, the duty period rig and the smaller TAFB rig don't properly compensate us for the days worked. It actually promotes the company using long layovers on many trips and reducing the number of duty periods. A 5 hour credit per day is much more effective than a 5 hour per duty period rig. You will find our pairings getting longer (TAFB will increase, and none of the new rigs will kick in). The duty period rig will only help certain unprductive pairings (low credit two day trips), but will increase the number of 3 day trips with 2 duty periods, 4 day trips with only 3 duty periods, and 5 day trips with 4 duty periods. The TAFB of 1:3.5 will never kick in and help.

The overall package hurts us more that it helps. Sad, but true. That a bunch of our own pilots (ref PVC, PWCs, BOOBS and non-voters) are willing to give away the farm in lew of really producing product that really provides for us. Sad that we are going to get screwed again, and again by our won pilots. Plus, this is just the submission to management. You can bet big $$$$ (if we had any) that management's reply will be something significantly less! If it ain't LOW COST/NO COST/COST NETURAL then management won't do it!

Just my opinion......

FNG

 

[clickclickboom]

First, I hope that they don't take your advise. Premium pay trip point should remain at 70 hours. The whole idea of premium pay is that it is an incentive to fly more hours and thus reduce the number of pilots needed to operate the airline.

Second, this saves the company a lot of money, and we should benefit from that savings. The concept regardless of what base pay is set at is still the same. The company saves money and we should get some of it.

Third, no one should have to work 95 hour or work to get 95 hours of credit to survivie. Using such a high comparision is just a manipulation to to make it look better than it is (with 75 hour premium vs current 70 hour point). It is just spin when you use number like this.

Fourth, eliminating the 13:30 type rigged trips, reduces pilot compensation per trip by several hundred dollars. The night rig only compensate less than 1 hour of premium pay, while the eliminatin of the 13:30 rig eliminates 1.5-2.5 hours of pay. Not balanced and an overall reduction in pay ($200-$400 worth per trip)!

FNG I agree with everything you said.. My example shows what a very senior FO at JB can accomplish.. I know that the 95 hr credit month i pull with 18 days off that there are 600 FO;s below me that can barely credit 80 15 days off..

thanks for your clarification..

ccBoom/ Top Gun

 

[FNG320]

FNG I agree with everything you said.. My example shows what a very senior FO at JB can accomplish.. I know that the 95 hr credit month i pull with 18 days off that there are 600 FO;s below me that can barely credit 80 15 days off..

thanks for your clarification..

ccBoom/ Top Gun

Not a problem. We all have our specific areas we like/dislike and what we can sustain in the way of productivity. I realize that there are the senior pilots in every seat/type that can bring down much better pay/credit that the 90-95% below them. We just need to make sure that we remember the majority of line holders, as well as reserves that have no chance at ever getting to that level of credit (most E190 pilots, all reserves, and the junior/bottom 50% of line holders in the A320). I realize that there are some changes to the work rules that will help some pairings (like the 6-8 hour two day trips), but in my emails with the PWC/PSC the majority of our pairing receive very little of the rig/protections and the overrides only add up to chump change and don't correct for the lost rigs or productivity.

By having a duty period rig vs a daily rig, this proposal actually screws the pilots even more by making/encouraging that every 3-4-5 day trip have a long lay over and reduce the number of duty periods to be equal to or less than the number of days in the trip. This prevents the rigs from tripping, it inceases TAFB (but not enough), and reduces the trips overall credit and productivity.

Good luck to us all, cause we are going to need it!!!!

Just my opinion......

FNG

 

[ualdriver]

Not surprisingly, less than 36 hours after the calculated "peer set" rates were made available to the pilot group, DB sends out the first of many "lowered expectations" e-mails.....

Do share! I bet I know the tune, but sometimes the lyrics are a little different....

 

[bluesideup340]

DB e-mail coincided with an investors meeting at UBS. It had/has nothing to do with the PVC report.

 

[Longhorn]

Good point about the UBS meeting. Very true but people will believe whatever they want to!! Sigh!!