PSA CRJ 701's

[N93]

I have heard of a blended rate. That is where each aircraft is assigned a payscale but the single payrate is used and is actually determined by the mix/ratio of the common types.

 

[dogg]

Why don't you just have seniority based pay and then you don't need to worry about who flies what.............

 

[328dude]

Um, explain that to me Dogg?

Seniority aka "Years of Service" does dictate your pay rate.

Sorry, maybe I'm missing what your trying to say.

 

[FurloughedAgain]

UPS has seniority based pay.

The pay scale is the same regardless of which airplane you fly.

As a result the 747 long range international is a very junior airplane over there -- whereas the 727 is very senior.

(the senior guy who lives in, say Dayton, bids SDF-DAY trips). There's no financial advantage to bidding the bigger airplane. Seniority based pay balances out the list a bit.

 

[The Penguin]

So in other words, one pay rate for all aircraft, like "Skywest".

 

[jrcpilot]

Furloughedagain is correct. The concern I have is that over time if unions or airlines continue to maintain a rate of pay that does not give way to better pay over time then the compensation will stagnate over time. I am all for a seniority driven pay scale. Unfortunately pay has always been based on equipment and then seniority within the equipment. A big advantage to a seniority only scale and that is it eliminates a lot of transisitioning from one equipment type to another thus creating less training events in the school house. This is an area that some carriers are trying to look into as a way to reduce operating and training costs as well. Traditionally we have never established pay this way thus many union groups are cautious. I don't mind a blended rate or obviously being paid 70 seat rate versus a 50 seat rate but when you base your pay on a lower scale, it undermines future increases. I don't fault Skywest for not trying to create growth which is what they did. By agreeing to the new rate they were able to solidify a deal for growth for the next few years. Will see if it pays off once the expansion happens. If it works and the company increases their pay later down the road thats great. If not ...well your back to square one.

 

[surplus1]

Don't pull a "Skywest."

Think about this. PSA is a USAirGroup subsidiary. Another USAG subsidiary (USAirways/Mid Atlantic) has already "agreed" to rates for 70-seat jets. If I'm not mistaken, those agreed rates match the rates at American Eagle. It is therefore unlikely that a rate negotiated by PSA will be any higher.

If anything it will likely be lower .... since the company will argue that if the more "qualified" U pilots can do it for that, the "students" at PSA can surely do it for less. [ALPA is unlikely to oppose such an arguement, which is consistent with their thought process].

For those of you at PSA ..... that's not a slam at you, it's a slam at what ALPA did at USAirways, and elsewhere.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the USAirways pilot group was the "first" to seek the lowest common denominator for the 70-seat jets. It wasn't Skywest (who I think made a big mistake) and it wasn't MESA (which was hamstrung by another of ALPA's brilliant moves, which resulted in the birth of Freedom).

Let's keep track of the real history of these "events". It's out there for those that care to take the time.

 

[surplus1]

UPS has seniority based pay.

The pay scale is the same regardless of which airplane you fly.

As a result the 747 long range international is a very junior airplane over there -- whereas the 727 is very senior.

(the senior guy who lives in, say Dayton, bids SDF-DAY trips). There's no financial advantage to bidding the bigger airplane. Seniority based pay balances out the list a bit.

Be careful how you draw this comparison. It is true the UPS has a common rate for all types. So did CAL before their last contract.

However, the IPA did NOT do what Skwest has done. The IPA did not agree to fly 747's for 727 pay rates (which would be the equivalent of what Skywest has done, i.e., agree to fly up to 99 seats for 50-seat scale).

What the IPA did was lower 747 scale (slightly) and agree to fly 727's, etc., for higher than normal rates. That's a HUGE difference in technique/strategy.

There can be big advantages to a "common rate" (which is not a true "seniority based pay system") if it is properly structured (as the IPA did). However, when you agree to pay rates for your largest aircraft (and for aircraft that you don't even have) that match the rates of your smallest equipment, one can easily classify that as naive at best and stupid at worst.

Many carriers have "blended rates" for similar sized aircraft, among them USAirways, Delta, CAL and others. Comair has a blended rate for variants of the CL-65/200 (40, 44, 50 seats). That is practical when the variants are so similar. A difference of 20 seats (50 v 70) in such a small aircraft is a 40% variance. That's different from the variance in an Airbus 319/320 or some of the 737-200/300/400 series and so forth. Delta "blends" the 757/767, but levels the playing field with international overrides. With larger aircraft the equation is somewhat easier.

The difference in productivity of a 50-seat jet vs a 99-seat jet is nearly 100% (the Skywest formula). A common or blended rate in that situation strikes me as apples/oranges.

We shall see how long it will really take for Skywest to get the "new and improved 70-seat rate" that they all appear to believe will magically happen in 18 months (from their DOS). As one of them said, time will tell.

Good luck to PSA. Let's hope they don't "match" their 50-seat rates (for the -700) or we may well set a new "low ball" record.

Maybe we should revise the Guiness Book system an give the "record" to whomever can go lower than the most recent preformance.

 

[dogg]

328 dude,
as others have pointed out-UPS and Alaska(the two that I know about) have seniority based pay ie it does not matter what airplane you fly. this of course requires that that the big airplanes pay a little less and the little ones pay a whole lot more. So if you have 328's and CR-7's they all pay the same. based on seniority

 

[Dashcaptain]

I am assuming that this means that ALG and PDT are left with nothing again. This is wonderful!! I guess 18 airplanes at ALG by the end of 2004 is still the plan while PSA gets everything. I see how that is fair!! Good luck to us all.

 

[328dude]

Thanks Dogg for the clerification. I see what your getting at.

Dashcaptain, as said before...we do not decide where these aircraft go. ALG and PDT have both agreed to the same J4J's in theory, but have decided to not go with the 50/50 rule on the CRJ-700's. We on the other hand will only take these aircraft at a 50/50 rate. Nothing more. All CRJ equipment will be 50/50 or nothing.

lately, PDT and ALG's (mainly ALG's) attempt to do it at 100 percent mainline flying on the CRJ-700 at 100 percent if you get 50 seaters is yet again another undermining attempt to go against what we all three decided that it should be which is 50/50. Why is that?

Looks like ALG is not thinking that way anymore.

 

[the turtle]

328,

You already know the answer. It's reached the point where each of you is willing to sell the other two out. Don't complain, however...your MEC sold out ALG and PDT first!

Or maybe it's all Mesa's fault!

 

[328dude]

Turtle:

No offense, but I was looking for a ALG or PDT go to answer that.

I would match rather get into this discussion with someone from another wholly owned that knows what all three of us were dealing with. It's easy for you or others to make that assumption by knowing only what you think is to be true.

Is it MESA's fault? Another thread another time.

 

[Dashcaptain]

ALG never did not agree to the 701s at 50/50, we were only offered them under the terms of loa 83 which said mainline pilots would get them at 100% and we would staff the 200s at 100%. As far as I know, nothing else was offered. If they offered PSA something else then what we were, it sounds fair to me. Your ta was the only one with a snap-back clause if jets never showed up. No one else got that offer. Sounds fishy to me!!

 

[PDTGIMP]

328dude,

You are 100% wrong on PDT wanting, or negotiating to anything 100% for mainline!

50/50 or nothing is OUR position. We worry that your MEC will sell us down the river by going along with 100%. Remember, when we all began negotiating concessionary agreements, PSA made an agreement with U before we all got together to prevent any whipsawing and this is the exact result: ALL for one and nothing for the rest.

I've stayed quiet on this issue, but PSA and U know that allowing PDT and ALG pilots to flow to PSA or MDA at our 4, 5, or 6th year pay is expensive. So because of your apathy, we are hitting the street and on this very board CFI's with 400 hrs. are asking for interview help from PSA guys.

Take a stand and help the guys left behind by putting pressure on your MEC, which doesn't even let you vote!