The ACA hypocrisy

[exphojump]

A couple of points,

Comair and ACA LCC RJ rates are apples to apples. Comair is wholly owned by DAL and profit derived from Comair goes directly to DAL's bottom line. So what is the difference between a pilot at CMR/ASA flying ROC-CVG-BHM and a pilot at ACA (LCC)flying ROC-IAD-BHM. None, because any profit/loss goes to the parent company's bottom line.

I may be incorrect but I believe JetBlue pilots receive stock options. Stock or stock options are great for the initial employees but provide diminishing return for subsequent employees. Who the heck wants time and a half after 70 hours? Why not receive a flat rate for flying? As a pilot I want the opportunity to drop trips without incuring substantial penalties for not flying 90 hours a month.

ACAI pilots receive unlimited profit sharing. It is prorated 2.5% to 7.5% of operating income. If we make over 16% profit then we receive 7.5% of that in our 401K, tax exempt. With a large profit that 2 - 5 year NB captain can make 20K or more in his/her 401K in addition to 5% match for those with 9 years at the company plus whatever the maximum 401K contribution for an individual. This is a very lucrative market based retirement plan independent of the company.

So we give up say 5% average in transition pay and 3%, taxable for the potential of over 15% income tax exempt, not so bad.

 

[Carl_Everett]

What about the loss of conflict pay? This could impact your pay SIGNIFICANTLY. I didn't happen to see anyone here mention that ALL NB CA's will start on the year 2 wage either. This means the most senior pilot in the company and the most junior pilot in the company are making the same wage in the left seat of the NB. How does that compare to SWA and JB?

Conflict pay was going away no matter what. The company would have implemented PBS anyway. Yes you will loose out on conflict pay until PBS is up and running, but the green book already allowed for the PBS and thus the loss of conflicts.

The resetting of longevity for NB pilots is another different issue. It only affects pilots on the senoirity list at the date of signing. Any new-hires will not have that stipulation. Why did ALPA agree to it? I can only assume that they were willing to give up the longevity pay to help the company get the LCC started. I am sure they used the logic that if the LCC didn't happen the only way ACA's senior pilots would make it to the left seat of a NB was to quit ACA and take a pay cut. This way they will get a pay raise AND fly NB's.

My point is this...I hope ACA is successful as a stand alone. But I think the comparisons aren't fair. It's not about what Comair gets paid. Comair might as well be a cosmetics company. It's a different business plan and in my opinion, not relevant. And what about the fact that JB gets paid time-and-a-half above 70 hours (plus the stock they get)? And the year 2 payrate for all NB CA's? And the fact that the work rule changes (conflict pay) will significantly reduce your take home pay? I really don't see how this TA in on par with JB or SWA.

RogerOver

When JBLU was two years old, all CA's were paid as two year CA's or less. If a new LCC comes along, all CA's will be 1st year CA's. That is all ACA did. They made the NB's pay set up like a new LCC.

I think it is unfair to expect ACA ALPA to get a T/A that made them on par with SWA, JBLU, etc. We need to wait and see if this LCC is successful. If it is successful, then hold your criticism until the T/A expires and a new contract is signed. IF ACA is as successful as SWA and JBLU in a few years, the pilots better be compensated like SWA and JBLU.

 

[RogerOver]

Who the heck wants time and a half after 70 hours? Why not receive a flat rate for flying? As a pilot I want the opportunity to drop trips without incuring substantial penalties for not flying 90 hours a month.

My point is not that the TA should have included a time-and-a-half provision. I'm simply pointing out that comparing the TA hourly wage to JB's hourly wage isn't a straight comparison. If ACA's lines are supposed to be constructed as close as possible to 89 hours, that equates to 19 hours that are flown above 70 hours. Flying this same amount at JB will pay 19 hours at something like $190 per hour. So how can you look at the TA pay rate and say it's on par with JB? That's only true if no one ever gets paid above 70 hours per month. That's a lot of $$$.

Roger

 

[w4mch]

You do have a point RogerOver, but if you refer to my last post on the subject, I said our rate is above jetBlue's BASE rate. Our MEC calculated an average month rate for JB, and the rate we settled on was very close to that rate.

We are splitting hairs here. In reality, my company has come to a triple fork in the road. One road leads to NB jets and an independent operation. another fork leads to a ACA/UAX agreement in which I stay in a CRJ, we furlough many pilots in parking the J-41's and everybody takes a 7.5% cut to keep the UAX business. The last fork in the road is even worse, being Mesa'd. True, there is no pay cut in that option, but does anybody really think that would last for long?

JB guys get stock. Guess what, I got ACA stock years ago. 1500 shares for free that split twice, sold for $30 each and paid for my house. If our new operation is successful I will get a fat bonus each year to my 401K in addition to my 6% company match. Thats not shabby for a regional airline trying to break into the big time.

In a perfect world I would be pitching a fit over having to go in to the big jet at 2nd year captain pay as I am an 18 year crj driver now. However, with UAL's bankruptcy and mesa trying to blow our house down, I again say our negotiating committee did a good job. A 97% yes vote for ratification speaks for itself.

 

[GogglesPisano]

Doesn't jetBlue pay time-and-half above 70 hours? Is anyone taking this into consideration? What about all of the stock you get at JB when you're a new hire? That's got to be worth quite a bit. As far as I'm concerned, ACA came in WAY below JB when this is factored in.

And I'm sorry, but I'm getting a little tired of comparing ACA's CRJ rates to, well...ANYONE'S! This is an apples to oranges comparison. ACA will be operating under a LCC business plan. Who else is operating 50 seaters under a LCC business plan? This is entirely different from the regional feed business plan under which ALL other CRJ's operate. Not to mention that most of those operate under a fixed fee-per-departure structure, which essentially caps an airlines earnings. ACA will have virtually no limit on their earnings potential. Use Tom Moore's own numbers...70% load factor at $149 average one-way fare. That's $5215 per departure, not including load factors higher than 70% or revenue from mail or other small cargo. Doesn't ACA currently make approximately $3000 per departure? I realize there is increased overhead and expenditure when operating as a stand-alone, but TM said this will be minimal...mostly advertising. Online ticket sales will be handled via a third party and will be very inexpensive. So why should an ACA pilot earn less than a Comair pilot to fly the CRJ? That's like saying a cop should make the same money as a taxi driver because they both drive a Chevy Caprice. Is that a fair comparison? Tell me what SWA or JB would pay their pilots if they had a 50 seat pay rate. I doubt it would be less than Comair.

RogerOver

Funny how the analysts aren't as optimistic as you. Those that aren't saying Mesa's takeover attempt will be successful are saying that our LCC will not. This TA made perfect sense to me. How can we shoot for the moon when we've got Mesa breathing down our neck and analysts being negative before we even get off the ground? When '07 rolls around, the profits are going into our 401k's and we've ordered another 100 NB's, I'll eat my hat. In the meantime, we should be thankful for what we've got.

We are basically going to be a start-up next year. I think the NC did an outstanding job.

 

[belchfire]

Someone on the last page said mesa
had the worst pay in the industry.

Ignorance is rampant! No raises at
corpex for two years now, no end in
sight. No jets for jobs, but we won't
ever have them...why? no jets!bet
Lakes guys are in about the same
boat since one of our former fearless
leaders went there!

Mesa, while notan icon of what this
industry should be is not leading the
race to the bottom...they spun out in
turn two and will never catch up!!!
Orenstein, ya scum! Hear that? there
is someone that pays less than You!!!
Ha!!!

I hope that ACA is succesful in the bid
to start a new page in airline history.

 

[46Driver]

And I'm sorry, but I'm getting a little tired of comparing ACA's CRJ rates to, well...ANYONE'S! This is an apples to oranges comparison. ACA will be operating under a LCC business plan. Who else is operating 50 seaters under a LCC business plan? This is entirely different from the regional feed business plan under which ALL other CRJ's operate.



--- I believe AirTran uses Air Wisconsin for CRJ feed. ---



What about the loss of conflict pay? This could impact your pay SIGNIFICANTLY.



--- It could also improve quality of life substantially for commuters - pay isn't everything. ---

RogerOver

 

[beezlebozo]

Conflict pay was going away no matter what. The company would have implemented PBS anyway. Yes you will loose out on conflict pay until PBS is up and running, but the green book already allowed for the PBS and thus the loss of conflicts.

Not true. Read the language again - it was put there specifically to PREVENT the company from implementing PBS. If those two paragraphs weren't in the contract, the company could implement PBS whenever they wanted.

This is from talking to someone who helped write that language...

Beezlebozo
Clown from Hell

 

[Carl_Everett]

Not true. Read the language again - it was put there specifically to PREVENT the company from implementing PBS. If those two paragraphs weren't in the contract, the company could implement PBS whenever they wanted.

This is from talking to someone who helped write that language...

Beezlebozo
Clown from Hell

I guess I should have worded that better. I agree that it was in the green book to prevent the company from just implementing PBS. It would require the union to approve any changes before it happened. But the statement "The company intends to implement PBS in the future...", shows that it had been discussed. Like it or not, the company wanted PBS, and they were going to get it one way or another. What would you be willing to give up in exchange for not giving the company PBS? pay rates? min days off? junior manning? I am not saying it was right to give it up, just that it was going to happen.

 

[beezlebozo]

I guess I should have worded that better. I agree that it was in the green book to prevent the company from just implementing PBS. It would require the union to approve any changes before it happened. But the statement "The company intends to implement PBS in the future...", shows that it had been discussed. Like it or not, the company wanted PBS, and they were going to get it one way or another. What would you be willing to give up in exchange for not giving the company PBS? pay rates? min days off? junior manning? I am not saying it was right to give it up, just that it was going to happen.

Nothing had to be given up. They can't implement PBS unless we agree to terms. If our terms for parameters are unreasonable, and we can't agree, the company can't (correction: couldn't) implement PBS. This is, of course, under our green book language, not under either LOA. There's no negotiation involved. Those two paragraphs prevented the company from implementing PBS.

You said the company wanted PBS, and were going to get it one way or the other, but that isn't the case. They couldn't get it unless we gave it to them. They've wanted PBS for at least the last three years, and that language has been in the contract since the beige book.

Beezlebozo
Clown from Hell

 

[transienttorque]

Can I borrow that ear flapping phrase?

I cleaned up the original for this forum. Please help yourself, especially if refering to J.O.