9E TA Reached

[Rocketman99]

Aren't you a Colgan guy, and an original Colgan (pre-ALPA days)? If so, your second paragraph is pot calling the kettle black.

As for the first part, back in 2007, Pinnacle's website had the minimums listed with 1000 total and 200 ME with astericks for both times. At the bottom of the page, the astericks listed 'lower flight time requirements for approved bridge program pilots.' To dissect your points one by one, first up is 'you paid more money.' But how so? With only a Comm-ME, the CFI route would have cost me getting the Comm-SE, then the CFI, double I, and MEI. Then working as a CFI would be great experience, but at an opportunity cost of not working at an airline. Those are all serious costs, and in the end of the day, I think my wallet would have lost what I spent at JetU anyway. Second, the "you weren't qualified otherwise to interview." But I was, under the bridge program requirements. As already written, Pinnacle in 2007 published the normal hiring requirements of 1000/200, and with an asterick, at the bottom listed that inidividual bridge programs had lower requirements. There were several programs. IIRC, Flight Safety Academy had a Pinnacle program that required 350 total time and 50 ME. JetU required no total time requirement, just a Comm/Inst/ME ratings. So under each different bridge program, you qualified based on the individual program requirements. It isn't really accurate to say that one was unqualified to interview and didn't have the time. You have to look at the individual program. Remember, despite your personal belief, 9E advertised two ways of getting an interview. Either get 1000/200 somehow on your own, or go through one of their approved bridge programs to get interviewed with lower hours. Their rationale was the bridge program guys would have almost no problems getting through the training program, as opposed to street hires. I'm not the one to make a case for equating more flight experience with RJ ground school/sim bridge training, but Pinnacle did that. All pilots were free to chose that path. Last point, "you paid for your job" is a big no. Gulfstream Academy was a true pay for a job, because when you paid for that program, you were basically buying 250 hrs in a Gulfstream Part 121 right seat as a first officer. No personal/HR interview with Gulfstream. You sat there and earned $8/hr, while regular FOs got double that at Gulfstream. That was a true PFJ program. The RJ bridge programs, like JetU, ALLATPs, etc, are not pay for a job. You aren't getting any actual airline flight time. What these programs are doing is hiring pilots with lower time agreements (that the reigonal airline agreed to) because with the specific airplane training, these airlines are willing to take lower flight hour experience in exchange for airplane-specific ground/sim school. It is not buying a job! I will agree it's buying airplane-specific ground and sim training, instead of CFIing or traffic work. 9E advertised both street-route and bridge program routes, and gave the requirements for both, on their own nwairlink.com career website. All pilots, in 2007, were free to choose from any method listed to get to Pinnacle. None of them were pay for job.

I most certianly am OG Colgan. I was also hired with well over ATP mins and an ATP having been a pilot in the Air Force. We had our little niche of the industry and we were fine at it. Hard to argue we had any impact in dragging down the industry since we didn't fly any jettttttsssss. And if you wanna argue that about the Q. Well we had a union drive and voted in ALPA. So your pot/kettle argument really has no merit whatseover. Nice try though.

As to the rest, none of that other set of hiring mins has anything to do with flying hours or experience whatsoever. Great that a bridge program meant you might make it through RJ training so airlines lowered mins to get warm bodies in the seat. It's a shame that has zero correlation with whether or not someone has any real flying experience and/or are actually a competent pilot or asset to the crew. You can teach a monkey to fly a V1 cut You can't teach a monkey not to take a plane up to 410 and flame out or how to not spin a plane at 2000 feet over a house.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

We're agreeing to disagree here.

Sounds good.

Likewise, you can't show the same for non-union carriers

Of course I can. Every concession that took place following 9/11 in the bankruptcy courts had management and their attorneys using the JetBlue numbers as their argument for why they needed concessions. The judges sympathized, and the pilots had no choice but to lower themselves to the non-union pay rate level in order to hold on to even a fraction of their scope, work rules, and benefits. It amazes me that anyone could have witnessed the post-9/11 concessions and not figured out that the reason was the vast delta between union and non-union wages.

 

[Boris Badenov]

At the risk of becoming tedious, I've flown with guys who checked the boxes at a Plot Factory. They were awesome at telling me the signal width of a high range VOR at x number of miles. They were just this side of retarded on how to operate an aviation appliance outisde of the hilariously shallow bounds of their experience. Aces at the FD-aided ILS, but when we didn't know why something that we thought was supposed to be happening wasn't happening, they were dumber than Gomer Pyle. "Hey, where are we?" "I dunno, check the map!" There's a reason you don't see these guys flying Falcons out of No Angles, Mexico. They'd be deader than dog dirt.

 

[kellwolf]

Of course I can. Every concession that took place following 9/11 in the bankruptcy courts had management and their attorneys using the JetBlue numbers as their argument for why they needed concessions. The judges sympathized, and the pilots had no choice but to lower themselves to the non-union pay rate level in order to hold on to even a fraction of their scope, work rules, and benefits. It amazes me that anyone could have witnessed the post-9/11 concessions and not figured out that the reason was the vast delta between union and non-union wages.

So why are the legacies better than the non-union carriers in pay and benefits. As I said, your argument holds weight in the early 2000s, but what about in recent years? Who's the lowest paid out there? US Airways, and it's not because of a non-union carrier, it's because they can't play nice with each other. Delta, United and even AMR in bankruptcy all saw pay increases as well as scope protection increases in their recent contract. How was that affected poorly by non-union carriers? And which non-union carriers are we talking about? jetBlue is the only one really big enough to make a difference. Virgin America is pretty small and may even "take care" of itself in the next couple of years.

You don't think the jetBlue numbers at the time MIGHT have had more to do with them only being a couple of years old rather than non-union? If it had been a union carrier with the lowest pay (and without jetBlue, I guess it would have been), management would have gone with that. In the 90s, it was SWA bringing the industry down. Now that they're the top paid, no one says that anymore. Seems like everyone does everything short of looking in the mirror to say who's dragging things down. If non-union carriers were the threat you seem to think they are, the United and Delta TAs would have been based on their pay rates and work rules. They weren't. We're living in a different era than the post-9/11 bankruptcies. Time to start looking forward instead of pointing fingers backwards.

 

[v1valarob]

This thread is exhausting.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

So why are the legacies better than the non-union carriers in pay and benefits. As I said, your argument holds weight in the early 2000s, but what about in recent years?

This is a repeating cycle. The union carriers get big improvements in their CBAs, and the non-union carriers lag behind. Then the economy takes a hit, management wants to reduce their costs, and they use the pay rates at the non-union carriers as a target. They either get them in bargaining, or they go to bankruptcy and get a judge to do it. Either way, the lower rates at the non-union carriers become the target and an excuse for claiming that the legacies can't be competitive.

You don't think the jetBlue numbers at the time MIGHT have had more to do with them only being a couple of years old rather than non-union?

No. Sure, it had an effect, but if you think your wages are going to go up to match the new industry standard without a union, then you're kidding yourself. You're going to continue lagging until you get a union on the property. And as long as you lag behind, you're a danger to all of the union contracts out there.

In the 90s, it was SWA bringing the industry down. Now that they're the top paid, no one says that anymore.

First, they're not the top paid. Don't let pay rates alone fool you. Their CBA lags behind DAL's and UAL's, and even Alaska's. Second, SWA is union in name only. SWAPA couldn't fight it's way out of a wet paper beg. To quote the former SWAPA President a couple of years ago, "we didn't get the highest pay rates because we're so good; we got the highest pay rates because everyone else came down to where we were." When SWAPA finally has to fight for something, instead of having it handed to them on a silver platter by Herb or Gary, everyone will see how ineffectual they truly are.

Time to start looking forward instead of pointing fingers backwards.

Failing to learn from history has dire consequences.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

Bottom line: 9E will be dragging the unionized carriers down with this concession.

I love the latest email: "why junior FOs should vote yes" is a topic. Is ALPA selling this contract to us? Heck yeah!

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Bottom line: 9E will be dragging the unionized carriers down with this concession.

Maybe. But I doubt it. I don't think the end result for the regional carriers will be any different, regardless of how the Pinnacle pilots vote. If the pilots vote in favor, then managements will use the new rates to argue that the industry standard has dropped to this level, and their pilots will have to accept the same. If the Pinnacle pilots vote against, then I think Delta will probably shut Pinnacle down in short order, and use that as the threat to other regional pilot groups if they don't accept similar concessions. With two airlines being shut down in less than a year (Comair and Pinnacle), a lot of pilots at the other regionals will be scared to death, and they'll fall in line with concessions. Either way, I don't think there's a way to avoid Delta's goal of bringing down their regional costs. Until we get real protections in place, such as portable longevity, management will find a way to screw over regional pilots.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Maybe. But I doubt it. I don't think the end result for the regional carriers will be any different, regardless of how the Pinnacle pilots vote. If the pilots vote in favor, then managements will use the new rates to argue that the industry standard has dropped to this level, and their pilots will have to accept the same. If the Pinnacle pilots vote against, then I think Delta will probably shut Pinnacle down in short order, and use that as the threat to other regional pilot groups if they don't accept similar concessions. With two airlines being shut down in less than a year (Comair and Pinnacle), a lot of pilots at the other regionals will be scared to death, and they'll fall in line with concessions. Either way, I don't think there's a way to avoid Delta's goal of bringing down their regional costs. Until we get real protections in place, such as portable longevity, management will find a way to screw over regional pilots.

Ah, when is Widget ceasing the DIP financing again?


Sent from Seat 3D

 

[kellwolf]

This is a repeating cycle. The union carriers get big improvements in their CBAs, and the non-union carriers lag behind. Then the economy takes a hit, management wants to reduce their costs, and they use the pay rates at the non-union carriers as a target. They either get them in bargaining, or they go to bankruptcy and get a judge to do it. Either way, the lower rates at the non-union carriers become the target and an excuse for claiming that the legacies can't be competitive.

So, when was the last cycle and which non-union carriers were involved?

No. Sure, it had an effect, but if you think your wages are going to go up to match the new industry standard without a union, then you're kidding yourself. You're going to continue lagging until you get a union on the property. And as long as you lag behind, you're a danger to all of the union contracts out there.

PR problem #2: a union will magically fix everything and we'll get the new industry standard. Look around at the union carriers. Even they are having trouble getting an "industry standard." Swap the rose colored glasses for the clear ones. It's EVERYONE. Wanna know who else is a danger to union contracts? OTHER union contracts. If US Airways finally gets their act together but shanks it on pay and work benefits in exchange for retirement stuff for those about to leave, what do you think is going to happen when Delta and United go back into negotiations? It's not JUST the non-union carriers, it's ALL of the carriers, union or otherwise.

First, they're not the top paid. Don't let pay rates alone fool you. Their CBA lags behind DAL's and UAL's, and even Alaska's. Second, SWA is union in name only. SWAPA couldn't fight it's way out of a wet paper beg. To quote the former SWAPA President a couple of years ago, "we didn't get the highest pay rates because we're so good; we got the highest pay rates because everyone else came down to where we were." When SWAPA finally has to fight for something, instead of having it handed to them on a silver platter by Herb or Gary, everyone will see how ineffectual they truly are.

So even the union carriers are "non-union." Maybe you mean to say "non-ALPA" when you say "non-union."

Failing to learn from history has dire consequences.

And living in the past and pointing fingers while ignoring the problems in your own house will lead to ruin as well. Look, we're fighting for a union over here. But with the issues ALPA's been having of late along with their apparent inability to admit any kind of problems they seem to have internally, it's become a pretty tough sell. In this thread, we've got an ALPA carrier ready to race to the bottom of the regional industry. Management will claim they were pushed there because of another unionized carrier. Skywest, the non-union carrier, is set to actually be drug down by BOTH of them along with other ALPA carriers like ExpressJet/ASA and Eagle. Please, tell me exactly which non-union carrier triggered all of this.

The bankruptcy contracts back in the 2000s were not caused by non-union carriers. Again, exactly which non-union carriers created market forces that drove those legacies into bankruptcy? jetBlue had only been around for two years tops and didn't even go public until 2002. In 2001, when the supposed mass pressure on the legacies happened, jetBlue had 20 airplanes and flew to about 16 cities out of JFK and had JUST opened LGB. If Delta, United and the rest of the big boys felt pressured by that, well, they had bigger problems. Again, what other non-union carriers put all that pressure on them? Management at those airlines share more of the blame than a start-up airline. They're the ones that wasted all the money on things like Ted and Song to try to break into a low cost market they didn't have the structure to support. I'm not "failing to learn from history," I'm just not blindly falling into step.

 

[kellwolf]

Bottom line: 9E will be dragging the unionized carriers down with this concession.

I love the latest email: "why junior FOs should vote yes" is a topic. Is ALPA selling this contract to us? Heck yeah!

If I read the fine print correctly, and the flow through cesases 6 months after the ammendable date, most of those junior guys won't even get their guaranteed day to interview.....

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

So, when was the last cycle and which non-union carriers were involved?

I already explained that. Post-9/11, with JetBlue rates being the management target.

PR problem #2: a union will magically fix everything and we'll get the new industry standard. Look around at the union carriers. Even they are having trouble getting an "industry standard."

No, they aren't. The pattern is clear in union bargaining, and has been for the past 2-3 years. It started with Alaska, and then continued with Hawaiian, AirTran, Delta, and United. This is a consistent industry pattern, all lead by union carriers bargaining under the RLA. Where is the "trouble" you're seeing in pattern bargaining?

So even the union carriers are "non-union." Maybe you mean to say "non-ALPA" when you say "non-union."

No, I don't. The IPA is certainly a legitimate union, even though I certainly don't agree with everything they do (rest rules lawsuit, for example). The APA, as well. Even the IBT, which I despise, behaves like a legitimate union. But SWAPA and USAPA are different animals. SWAPA was created by SWA back in the day as nothing more than a way to avoid ALPA getting on the property, and they've done nothing but take whatever management hands them ever since. USAPA doesn't even pretend to act like a real union. It's nothing more than an artificial construct to prevent implementation of the Nic Award.

In this thread, we've got an ALPA carrier ready to race to the bottom of the regional industry. Management will claim they were pushed there because of another unionized carrier. Skywest, the non-union carrier, is set to actually be drug down by BOTH of them along with other ALPA carriers like ExpressJet/ASA and Eagle. Please, tell me exactly which non-union carrier triggered all of this.

First, Skywest isn't getting "drug down" by anything. Skywest rode the union coattails for years. They'd all be making $3/hr and getting 2 days off a month if it weren't for the ALPA coattails. If you choose to do nothing more than ride coattails, then don't complain when it doesn't go your way.

As far as this regional situation, I've never claimed that it's caused by non-union carriers. The regional environment is a different environment than the mainline environment. Notice back in my earlier posts that I talked about the lack of portable longevity, and the RFP wars, as other real problems. Those are the problems killing the regional carriers.

The bankruptcy contracts back in the 2000s were not caused by non-union carriers. Again, exactly which non-union carriers created market forces that drove those legacies into bankruptcy?

The effects of non-union carriers usually aren't about "market forces." They're about pattern bargaining. The market forces of the post-9/11 environment, with the sudden drop in yields, created the environment that required management to cut costs. The non-union carriers with their wages almost half of what the union carriers were paying became the management target, and because everything in bargaining relates to patterns, it drives down the industry standard. When a carrier needs to cut costs, the bankruptcy judge is going to look at what the profitable carriers are paying, and he's going to use that as his target. From his perspective, Carriers A,B,C, and D are hemorrhaging money, and they're paying pilots $250/hr. Carriers E and F are profitable, and they're paying pilots $140/hr. He knows that pilot wages aren't the sole cause of the problem, but he also doesn't have the time (or inclination) to conduct in-depth studies to determine exactly which items have more of an effect. Instead, his job is to act quickly to get the carrier solvent to protect the creditors. So, he uses a hatchet and cuts the pay down to where the profitable competitors are. He doesn't care how long they've been in business, or what their business models are. He doesn't have time for all of that. He just sees the rate, and that's all that matters. This is why it's incredibly important to keep a tight banding of pay rates for similar equipment across the industry.

 

[jtrain609]

Does anyone have the ta language?

 

[RPM]

Bottom line: 9E will be dragging the unionized carriers down with this concession.

I love the latest email: "why junior FOs should vote yes" is a topic. Is ALPA selling this contract to us? Heck yeah!

Same thing just happened at Eagle.. well not as bad a situation as Pinnacle but ALPA was still running the hard sale big time of our new garbage 8 YEAR concessionary contract just the same. "Vote yes or else".. It was impossible to tell the difference between ALPA, who is "supposed" to be on our side, and management. They were one and the same.

ALPA, supporting the degradation of the Regionals, one airline at a time.. (or should I say one cocktail/steak dinner on us at a time)

..and now that our crap contract was approved, the implementation schedule of items is just spectacular. The cuts start immediately, Jan 2013.. while one thing the pilots actually wanted, and was touted highly by ALPA as a victory, "unlimited OT" isn't even going to be implemented until 2014, oddly enough the same time PBS is implemented, so we won't even have hardly any OT anyway then. I guess its OK for the company to just do whatever they want, whenever they want with no push back from ALPA.. like how they were just violating the contract with low time FO's getting lines built out of seniority order.. but who cares right? Oh, and since we had no leverage on our contract according to ALPA.. what's the deal with us taking all these concessions and now the company is paying new hires 5K bonuses? Rumored to be 10K soon.. that's nice. ALPA? Hello?? Now to see what they are supporting and "selling" over at Pinnacle is disgusting.. (ex: captains start over at yr 1?) really? Does ALPA really want to start a precedent like this? WTF!!! The rest of the airlines will all be next to go to crap like that..

Thanks for fighting for us ALPA. Good job..

I could bend over for free.. don't need to pay somebody to help me do it.

The list of ALPA fails is long, but distinguished..
Pinnacle
Mesa
Comair (deceased)
Eagle
Trans States
Commutair
?
..who's next? Surejet? Getting pretty hard to keep track of these things really.

the plaque for the alternates is down in the ladies room..

 

[kellwolf]

I already explained that. Post-9/11, with JetBlue rates being the management target.

"Cycle." I asked about the last cycle. How many contracts have Delta and United negotiated since then? What you're talking about is one instance, not a cycle.

No, they aren't. The pattern is clear in union bargaining, and has been for the past 2-3 years. It started with Alaska, and then continued with Hawaiian, AirTran, Delta, and United. This is a consistent industry pattern, all lead by union carriers bargaining under the RLA. Where is the "trouble" you're seeing in pattern bargaining?

Okay, either the union carriers are doing well, or the non-union guys are bringing it down? Which is it? You've stated both in this thread.

No, I don't. The IPA is certainly a legitimate union, even though I certainly don't agree with everything they do (rest rules lawsuit, for example). The APA, as well. Even the IBT, which I despise, behaves like a legitimate union. But SWAPA and USAPA are different animals. SWAPA was created by SWA back in the day as nothing more than a way to avoid ALPA getting on the property, and they've done nothing but take whatever management hands them ever since. USAPA doesn't even pretend to act like a real union. It's nothing more than an artificial construct to prevent implementation of the Nic Award.

So, you don't like SWAPA because it was a way to avoid ALPA, but you're okay with APA which was created because American wanted to take their ball and go home. Fact is they are legal representatives of the pilot group. Like it or not, they're unions. They might not fit YOUR definition, but they fit the legal definition. I agree that USAPA was an end around the Nic award, but the pilots went through the proper channels to get where they are today. Saying they are different than ALPA from a legal standpoint is straight up wrong.

First, Skywest isn't getting "drug down" by anything. Skywest rode the union coattails for years. They'd all be making $3/hr and getting 2 days off a month if it weren't for the ALPA coattails. If you choose to do nothing more than ride coattails, then don't complain when it doesn't go your way.

Again, you're showing your union biased. Skywest is a non-union carrier that has had better pay and work rules than union carriers for years now. If anything, Pinnacle was riding on THEIR coat tails during the last negotiations. What about the other UNION carriers I mentioned being drug down by their fellow union carriers? A rising tide lifts all boats, unless the tide is constantly going out....

The effects of non-union carriers usually aren't about "market forces." They're about pattern bargaining. The market forces of the post-9/11 environment, with the sudden drop in yields, created the environment that required management to cut costs. The non-union carriers with their wages almost half of what the union carriers were paying became the management target, and because everything in bargaining relates to patterns, it drives down the industry standard. When a carrier needs to cut costs, the bankruptcy judge is going to look at what the profitable carriers are paying, and he's going to use that as his target. From his perspective, Carriers A,B,C, and D are hemorrhaging money, and they're paying pilots $250/hr. Carriers E and F are profitable, and they're paying pilots $140/hr. He knows that pilot wages aren't the sole cause of the problem, but he also doesn't have the time (or inclination) to conduct in-depth studies to determine exactly which items have more of an effect. Instead, his job is to act quickly to get the carrier solvent to protect the creditors. So, he uses a hatchet and cuts the pay down to where the profitable competitors are. He doesn't care how long they've been in business, or what their business models are. He doesn't have time for all of that. He just sees the rate, and that's all that matters. This is why it's incredibly important to keep a tight banding of pay rates for similar equipment across the industry.

Okay, for the sake of argument, let's say jetBlue voted ALPA in on 2/12/2000, the day after they started flying. What would their wages have been during the period you're referring to? The same as they were without the union. If they HAD negotiated a contract, it would have been a record for a first CBA to get it done by the time all the other carriers were in bankruptcy. But, it would have been "okay" because they voted in a union? I find that pretty slanted in view as the results would have been EXACTLY the same.

It's kind of like the Continental scabs. They drug down the industry until they paid their back dues, now everything is okay. I find that wrong, myself. I don't see how you can accuse someone of dragging down the industry then say "Come play for our team. We're the best" and expect them to happily do so. Hence the reason ALPA has a serious PR problem. If you don't see it your way (and many other ALPA supporters are the same), you're a blight on the industry right up to the day you kick in your 1.9%. Then all is forgiven.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

the plaque for the alternates is down in the ladies room..

Ah yes, election results are in, this guy is your new MEC chair - have a nice day.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Likely would have worked, too (sticking with the whole contract rather than the band aid) if the industry hadn't come to a screeching halt a month later. It wasn't just the chest thumpers. Pinnacle was having trouble getting people to come and this was the best leverage the pilots had in getting a contract. We played the numbers. It failed. Sorry you didn't get your raise, but those are the breaks. It wasn't even against MAINLINE, so I'm not even sure why you're talking about that. It was against Pinnacle management agreeing to a full contract rather than a patchwork "fix." Oh, and the seniors sell out the juniors at plenty of airlines. Ask Delta, US Airways and even jetBlue.

Pinnacle had no shortage of pilots coming in. Plenty of JetU and ALLATPs guys were left standing around when the movement stopped and industry tanked in 2008. I didn't mind not getting the raise at the time, I understood what they were trying to do. But what floored me is when this same union tried to tie the 2009 TA#1 bonus to wages earned over the last few years, knowing damn well the 1st/2nd/3rd year FO wages were suppressed on purpose by the union. By then, they knew the hardstand no to payraises on FOs had failed because the economy tanked. It was a total slap in the face to try and use W2 wages. Oh well, they have bigger crap to worry about now, and I'm over it.

I stand by what I said. I interviewed in Feb 2006 and started in March. There were no "RJ courses" when I was instructing.

First part true, but only for Pinnacle. As I wrote, the courses were online on nwairlink career website in the fall of 2006.

No RJ courses when you were instructing?

Aren't you this same kellwolf, the one who nearly did the Mesa's PACE program in 2004 or early 2005:

http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/us-air.11672/

As of right now, I'm still gunning for April. Jan is out since I still don't have my multi comm, and the kid is due in March. I'm still planning on going, I'm just keeping as many options open as I can "just in case."

I just got off the phone with my buddy who just wrapped up IOE. Hearing him talk about it got me seriously jazzed about it again.

I talked to some relatives, and they're sending me info on cheap places to live in Farmington. As far as an FO's salary, that's why I'm back with mom and dad for a while. Saves me some $$$ and someone is there to help Ness with the munchkin while I'm gone. At least I'll still have my SWA flight benefits, so I can TRY to get home on weekends.

He can get into PACE with his Comm SE and get the ME at the school. Depending on his schedule and your finances, it might even be cheaper that way. Just something to look into.

Now, if we can get me, *****, ******, ****** all in a house or something, we can live super cheap.

Yep, which is why I'm still working on my BS and probably starting on my CFI this Nov. While PACE is still my number one option, it's not my only option. I'm gonna agree the US Air will be gone by the end of the year, and then I'm gonna count my blessings that I DIDN'T start PACE this Jan. Starting in April gives me a chance to see what Mesa is gonna do as far as getting replacement revenue for all those lost US Air flights. If Mesa stops hiring and starts furloughing, I'm not going to PACE. If Mesa pulls thourgh and keeps trudging along, I'll go. The tough one is gonna be if they stop hiring but DON'T furlough anyone. That's a tough call. I've got a good friend who just finished IOE, so if there are furloughs, he'll probably be one of the first to go (assuming the furlough in seniority order and don't risk the lawsuit).

For me it's a "wait and see" thing right now. If I go PACE and wind up getting screwed, feel free to drop the "I told you so" bomb, and I will be the first one to agree with you. I just know a LOT of guys that have had success with the program, and that's hard for me to ignore. However, that doesn't mean I'm ignoring all the bad joo-joo.

The thing is NONE of these flight programs (not ATP, not the local FBO) offer any gaurantees. You could get all your CFI ratings at your local FBO and never get a job there. You could go all the way through ATP and not get hired with them. Same with FSI, Ari-Ben and (god help us all) DCA. I appreciate all the advice on this board (REALLY appreciate it), and I listen to everything most everybody says. This just seems like the best route for me. Granted right now I'm feeling like I'm stuck in limbo with Charley toasting my plane, no job, can't get a hold of ERAU financial aid to start classes again, and all the flight schools up here want my first born for a 172. I'm just frustrated since I should ALREADY be working on my CFI......

Mesa's PACE program was pretty much identical to 9E's Jet U program, except Jet U wasn't owned by 9E or had any other financial ties. It seems from above that the reason you decided against it is because of the potential US Air liquidation and its result on Mesa. You're pretty quick to put down RJ transition course guys when you, yourself, almost did it in 2005. You wrote that when you were a CFI, there were no RJ courses, whereas in fact, the PACE program was a RJ course, and would have gotten you to Mesa. The bottom line is as a low time Comm/Inst/ME rated pilot, even you almost did this same kind of route I did. So don't be so quick to be judgemental on guys who have gone through this route. I find it hard to believe that a low time pilot wouldn't consider a RJ course option if it was available. You obviously did in 2004/2005, and I obviously did in 2007. Now with the ATP rule, this is all a moot point, but don't forget your history either.

As for first year pay at regionals (or even majors/LCCs), it is usually sold out by the union to get advantages on the upper end. Perfect example is Spirit's recent new contract, where first year pay was sold out from $44/hr to $38.50/hr for the duration of the contract.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Maybe. But I doubt it. I don't think the end result for the regional carriers will be any different, regardless of how the Pinnacle pilots vote. If the pilots vote in favor, then managements will use the new rates to argue that the industry standard has dropped to this level, and their pilots will have to accept the same. If the Pinnacle pilots vote against, then I think Delta will probably shut Pinnacle down in short order, and use that as the threat to other regional pilot groups if they don't accept similar concessions. With two airlines being shut down in less than a year (Comair and Pinnacle), a lot of pilots at the other regionals will be scared to death, and they'll fall in line with concessions. Either way, I don't think there's a way to avoid Delta's goal of bringing down their regional costs. Until we get real protections in place, such as portable longevity, management will find a way to screw over regional pilots.

You are the king of spinning words.

The union carriers get big improvements in their CBAs, and the non-union carriers lag behind. Then the economy takes a hit, management wants to reduce their costs, and they use the pay rates at the non-union carriers as a target. They either get them in bargaining, or they go to bankruptcy and get a judge to do it. Either way, the lower rates at the non-union carriers become the target and an excuse for claiming that the legacies can't be competitive.

What is happening to Pinnacle is exactly the opposite of what you are writing. This time, a union ALPA carrier will vote for paycuts while non-union carriers like Skywest actually are much higher paying than Pinnacle. If Pinnacle pilots say no, vote it down, Pinnacle will cease to operate in a year. If they vote yes, pass it, then Delta management will use the new pay/compensation package as the industry benchmark that Skywest will have to match. This is when your ALPA brothers at 9E are about to undercut Skywest and ASA. You can't argue that Skywest is any less senior or longevity than Pinnacle. Skywest has a lot of seniority + longevity in their pilot group too, plus industry leading payscales. Where you at now ATN Pilot? Skywest has industry leading pay for a regional, being a non-union regional airline. In fact, a union airline Pinnacle ALPA is about to screw Skywest and all other DCI carriers if they vote this contract in.

What a fail!

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Way offthread and looking for differential reverse, brakes, and rudder to get back on centerline, but deserves attention—

At the risk of becoming tedious, I've flown with guys who checked the boxes at a Plot Factory.

Isn't it sort of ridiculous that the 141/collegiate environment gets a "discount" on the ATP rule?

They were awesome at telling me the signal width of a high range VOR at x number of miles.

Crap, I probably can't tell you that. (Why aren't we going direct? )

They were just this side of retarded on how to operate an aviation appliance outisde of the hilariously shallow bounds of their experience. Aces at the FD-aided ILS, but when we didn't know why something that we thought was supposed to be happening wasn't happening, they were dumber than Gomer Pyle. "Hey, where are we?" "I dunno, check the map!" There's a reason you don't see these guys flying Falcons out of No Angles, Mexico. They'd be deader than dog dirt.

We are very spoiled in the continental United States, for sure. For the most part, air carrier airports are well-equipped and we're spoiled with radar monitoring right down to the deck.

Take that same pilot to Mexico, or to certain places out in Mountain West ("Brand Y 5155, cleared direct ***** intersection, maintain 7,400 until procedure turn outbound, cleared for the localizer back-course runway 16, radar services terminated, frequency change approved and have a great night sir") and it is likely that Joe Blow from a farm will be outside their experience level.

That's not necessarily immediately dangerous. Failure to quickly recognize a high threat environment, then adequately manage the situation and rise to the occasion (or escape it outright if need be), though, is disastrous. "This is outside my experience" is certainly your cue to maintain positive aircraft control (above all else!), slow the expletive down, be meticulous in your work, and exit the situation. (Remember: Good judgment comes from experience and experience comes from...you know the rest.)

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

"Cycle." I asked about the last cycle. How many contracts have Delta and United negotiated since then? What you're talking about is one instance, not a cycle.

Look back to the previous iteration, the early-mid '90s. Many pilots don't remember it, but this was also an era of concessionary agreements, albeit nowhere near as bad as the bankruptcy era of the '00s. In the wake of the EAL, PAA, and BNF bankruptcies, tons of low-cost competitors popped up, hoping to imitate Southwest, which was still a relatively small competitor in those days, but starting to get a lot more respect as a low-cost leader. Airlines like Delta and USAirways wanted concessions, claiming that they needed to cut costs to compete with Southwest and other low-cost competitors. Delta in particular wanted $2 billion in cost savings, almost a quarter of which was to come from the pilots. It's forgotten today, but the famous Contract '01 was the follow-up to the concessionary Contract '96, with many pilots still claiming that they hadn't made back what they had lost in terms of work rules.

This cycle will always continue in the deregulated environment, because that's just how pattern bargaining works. You can't have a group of carriers paying far less and not expect that to impact the pattern. That's just common sense. You need to have a tight pattern of pay rates in order to gradually build upon them. Having one carrier paying $150/hr for the same equipment that another carrier pays $230/hr on is a recipe for failure.

Okay, either the union carriers are doing well, or the non-union guys are bringing it down? Which is it? You've stated both in this thread.

Come on, you're smarter than this. Both statements can be true, depending on which part of the cycle you're looking at. Right now, we're in the up portion of the cycle. Airlines are profitable, and some are even growing, despite a sluggish economy. When we hit the back end of the cycle, and airlines start losing money again (only a matter of time), that's when the non-union carriers cause their harm. That's when managements use their substandard contracts against us, both in Section 6 and in bankruptcy.

So, you don't like SWAPA because it was a way to avoid ALPA, but you're okay with APA which was created because American wanted to take their ball and go home. Fact is they are legal representatives of the pilot group. Like it or not, they're unions. They might not fit YOUR definition, but they fit the legal definition. I agree that USAPA was an end around the Nic award, but the pilots went through the proper channels to get where they are today. Saying they are different than ALPA from a legal standpoint is straight up wrong.

I didn't argue it from a legal standpoint. Those are your words. I argued it from a practical standpoint. The APA behaves like a union. USAPA does not. Their legal status doesn't really matter.

Skywest is a non-union carrier that has had better pay and work rules than union carriers for years now.

This is simply false. Skywest has had better pay and work rules than some union carriers, but not better than the industry standard. They ride the ALPA coattails because their management keeps them at or close to the standard to keep ALPA off of the property.

Okay, for the sake of argument, let's say jetBlue voted ALPA in on 2/12/2000, the day after they started flying. What would their wages have been during the period you're referring to?

Impossible to know.

It's kind of like the Continental scabs. They drug down the industry until they paid their back dues, now everything is okay.

The Continental scabs never paid back dues.