Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
EDUC8-or said:Agreed, but it's too late for that. Mainline is getting slapped in the face (90 seat jets at PSA with mainline pilots on the street). PSA is getting slapped in the face (fly the 90 seaters for LESS than 70 seaters AND a pay freeze). PDT is getting slapped in the face (more jets for the other W/O who they feel already stabbed them in the back).
PropPiedmont said:The next step for PSA negotiations will go somewhat like this:
Management will say, "If the PSA pilot group doesn't agree to fly the -900 at current payrates then that is just fine."
Next they'll say, "Due to current economic conditions and the continued rise in the price of oil, we have determined that operating a fleet of 50 seat RJs is no longer economically viable. Starting next month PSA will begin returning CRJ 200s to the lessor."
And lastly, "The CRJ-900 flying is still available for PSA to secure. In order to prevent the furlough of half of our pilot group it is strongly recommended that we bid on this flying at our current rates. Your job security and futures are in your own hands, we know you will do what you think is right and best for the pilot group as a whole."
ABITRATOR said:Yes but ALPA represents us. If we all start make posivtive statements, such as turning down such offers, then we just might light the fire under their butts. And if they still fail to take a stand, then we find new representation.
ex j-41 said:But did you know that if the Cpt and F/O were each given a $5 raise it would work out to $0.11 more for each passenger/hr. 90 seats/$10
The fares would only have to raise ELEVEN cents/hr for us to get a raise. Is this unreasonable?
We are getting taken advantage of and it has to stop.
It will stop with a "NO" vote!
jetfo said:EDUC8-or:
You're not educating too clearly! How in the world do interpret the offer to mean flying the 900s for less than the 700s?
And, actually mainline pilots are flying them, although unfortunately not at mainline.
LandRoverNut said:Crzipilot said:This is exactly where alpa (national) needs to step in and control the situation.Crzipilot said:(TSA/G*jets, another I believe and every other whipsaw that's occured) Set a nationwide rate / or cost of operting per aircraft. Whether it's through pay rates, vacation amounts/ rigs / etc etc.....And not allow a carrier to go below that.
If PSA had the safety of knowing that they could turn these aircraft away, without another carrier coming in and agreeing to do it, there wouldn't be any argument as to what to do. But the current situation, where MESA has 900's currently operating on the property, one would fathom and No vote would send these things quicker than you can say it, straight to Mesa or somewhere, and I would put money on it that pilot group wouldn't think too hard on taking on the a/c. Get all the MEC's together and agree to do it for X amount min. and you negate the whipsaw. It is this situation that allows management to come in with a straight face, and give a take it or leave it offer. They know they have 5 other whores, they can go proposition. So we are number two.
Amen!!! ALPA National needs to help all of us out. The main line guys, the J4J's, Furl. guys, and all the regionals and come up with a pay scale and work rules min. fast before this industry is forever changed.
This is the only possible solution folks, Crzi and Landrover are absolutely right! Nothing short of that will stop the whip sawing and the race to the bottom!
They know they have 5 other whores, they can go proposition. So we are number two.
EDUC8-or said:The current blended ratio of 200's/700's will be frozen. (Bring on a 700 and our pay rate ever so slightly increases). That's not going to happen with this deal, thus we would be flying the 900's with a freeze in the blended rate resulting in less money.
Sure, there are furloughed mainline pilots flying them here.
The reason is that that our 700s rates are just under or even above industry average for flying this size of equipment and even very close to the E190 rates.
mamba20 said:You know what? If they say that they are going to shut the place down if we dont take the 900's with the current rate then so be it. Close this ********************ty ass joke of an airline down.
And for you Sig, and Sniper, PSA didnt screw PDT or ALG FACT! You guys hung us out to dry first. Try not to get blown over on the north ramp ok?
mamba20 said:You know what? If they say that they are going to shut the place down if we dont take the 900's with the current rate then so be it. Close this ********************ty ass joke of an airline down.
And for you Sig, and Sniper, PSA didnt screw PDT or ALG FACT! You guys hung us out to dry first. Try not to get blown over on the north ramp ok?
ex j-41 said:You are talking Captain pay only. The F/O pay is very substandard.
$21.85/hr vs $41 for mainline.
BenderGonzales said:Oh sure. They're not A320s now. Not until they decide to rename it the RJ320 and guys like you agree to fly them on a blended rate with the CRJ.
You are omitting some important details here! First year pay at US Airways on the narrowbodies, except the E190, is $25/hour. Three more dollars for flying 70-100 more seats than you do!
I'm in total agreement. I love to fly and I didn't get into this industry for the money. But living paycheck to paycheck going from hotel to hotel 18 nights a month in some industrial park in BFE has to be worth something.ex j-41 said:Ok $28 vs $44. 2nd year!
Top pay for F/O is $36 Vs $52
Takes 7 years to get there.
Takes 6 years to get to TOS with US Airways....
Can't buy this one....Nobody is going to start year 1 at US Air on anything other than the E190. That is why the pay is $41/hr. Those numbers are there to take up space. Should have used a "-" instead.
Pay for F/O is horrible. If you really want a yes vote then this has got to change. I understand that we are not mainline but you have to realize that for 200 days a year in crappy hotels eating airport food has to be worth more than $20k a year? Regardless of airplane size.
"SHOW ME THE MONEY"
EDUC8-or said:Hmmm, I wonder who negotiated our last contract.
nethan said:I don't think we can blame that one even on the senior pilots. They all voted no![]()
The current pay scale was not voted in by the pilots, it was rejected in a vote. THe MEC installed this agreement in a midnight session under the threat that PDT had agreed to fly the planes for the money the company wanted to pay, and that all the planes would go there if the MEC did not agree to it.nethan said:I don't think we can blame that one even on the senior pilots. They all voted no![]()
Sawmill said:we moan if we only get 12 days off a month?!? Last time I checked, there were 8 weekend days in a month (give or take) that every other working stiff is happy with. .
Victor Meldrew said:Jetfo, I have to admire your confidence, however you sound like you have "inside" sources and info. How certain are you that infact these will be growth aircraft - do you have a copy of the proposal?
Again I say it, Parker wants to cut back on the 50's, MESA is gone with the 50's, TSA have some and CHQ, like AWAC have binding contracts that mandate the use (in CHQ case 70's & 50's) for USAir in return for the money they pumped in.
PSA are a WO why not give the 90's to PSA and remove some of the excess 50 seaters? If I was Parker thats EXACTLY what I would do, kill two birds with one stone - less 50's more 90's - simple.
khsgt said:Everybody has been bashing us for years (rightfully so) and now let's see what kind of decision PSA makes...looks like they may not have any "moral high ground" anymore
Crzipilot said:Sorry you Mesa Puke
-rant off....
khsgt said:Everybody has been bashing us for years (rightfully so) and now let's see what kind of decision PSA makes...looks like they may not have any "moral high ground" anymore