AWAC TA Failed
- Thread starter m77y
- Start date
Stryker172
Well-Known Member
I didnt get to vote because Im so new but everyone Ive flown with told me all about the proposal and why they were voting no. Happy to hear it.
F
Flying Saluki
Guest
So why did they vote no?
guywhoflies
Y'NO WUT IM SAYIN
Two main reasons were no pay raises and employee insurance contribution increases.
The rest of the quality of life gains weren't enough to offset the lack of raises and increased insurance costs.
The rest of the quality of life gains weren't enough to offset the lack of raises and increased insurance costs.
MOGuy424
Well-Known Member
2%.....but it could have been .0002% and I still would have voted NO. A puny raise in per diem (that I heard many alpa guys tout as a win and offset ), increase in international per diem, unless going to Canada (needed a passport last i was there), and loss of headset allowance. In a time when everyone one is making money no reason the pilots doing the exact same job shouldn't be getting raises like all their mainline "brothers", if you wanna call them that. I'm proud to be part of a pilot group who are not just another lemming goin over the edge.
F
Flying Saluki
Guest
Not for nothing, but it's also a time when AWAC is uncompetitive in the industry because of its costs.
cstewart6
Just smart enough to operate the machines
Thank you for your thoughtful and timely analysis! We better take pay cuts super quick guys!
Last edited:
F
Flying Saluki
Guest
So what have gotten a yes vote?
Table Two
Well-Known Member
This TA had absolutely nothing to do with getting more flying or shutting the place down. There was no reason to vote it in, in hopes of getting more flying/bigger planes/etc.
The benefits affected the few, and the concessions affected the whole.
Plus, we would have been stuck with it for another five years while they negotiate a new contract, never getting back what we have given up.
I hope the results of the new survey focuses on monetary gains for the full pilot group, as we deserve, and compare us against the whole regional industry, not just the few 50 seat operators still out there.
The benefits affected the few, and the concessions affected the whole.
Plus, we would have been stuck with it for another five years while they negotiate a new contract, never getting back what we have given up.
I hope the results of the new survey focuses on monetary gains for the full pilot group, as we deserve, and compare us against the whole regional industry, not just the few 50 seat operators still out there.
abolton1
Well-Known Member
You know our costs?
This is also a time where we're not canceling due to staffing or getting sued for not being able to fulfill our contract. I don't think the "too expensive to be competitive" argument exist anymore. Especially if republic passes their TA.
mastermags
Well-Known Member *giggity*
It's the only argument. Look at XJT and GoJet.
MOGuy424
Well-Known Member
Like mentioned above. We are not canceling flights and the planes originally scheduled to park were told by AA "um no, we need you to fly those bc of the lift oh provide." We have one of the top, if not the top, completion factors industry wide. So what would have gotten a yes vote? Mo money, better schedules, less interference from scheduling regarding swaps, drops, pick ups, better per diem (ok got that sliiightly), pay scales for larger aircraft assuming we got them, to name a few. Remember this current contract is a concessionary from the United junk, absolutely ZERO reason to take any kind of concessions at this point, even a 2% increase. I could go on and on but I have some college ball to watch and beer on ice....
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
So in other words, the only thing that could get a yes vote would be something completely unworkable in the real world? Got it.
MOGuy424
Well-Known Member
Oh people like you afflicted with bendoverandtakeituptheass-itus make me feel sorry for the future. Not necessarily every one of those had to be met, but the only one offered was per diem and it was a measly increase. Ya know people probably said that our current contract was unworkable in the "real world" as you so elegantly put it when it was in production, but alas here we sit with a "regional" industry leading contract that has many many more benefits than some major airline contracts. SO, why don't you continue selling your propaganda to the regional pilots that have the same affliction you do, there are plenty out there gullible enough to listen.
Cheers.
F
Flying Saluki
Guest
Just my opinion of course, but it sounds like the AWAC pilot group is giving the company up for dead, and just trying to get what it can before the end. If that's the goal, then so be it. Better for me and my employer. But if long term survival is the goal then it would seem a better strategy to keep costs where they are and let the rest of the FFD industry leap-frog ahead of you, thus putting AWAC in a more competitive position for future flying contracts.
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
Agreed, I'm more than a little tired of mainline union guys telling regional pilots to "..lie back and think of England".
For the life of me I don't understand why any union pilot group should agree to work for less than Skywest. 1st year pay of 35/hr should be the absolute minimum for any pilot group.
F
Flying Saluki
Guest
And to me, therein lies the problem. Pattern bargaining is premised on the view that all airlines are the same. For the life of me, I can't think of any two players in the FFD segment where an apples-to-apples comparison can be made.