AAG to Transfer Envoy ERJ-145s to TSA and Piedmont

But AAG is run by US Airways after the merger, and Envoy was much less profitable than the other two.
 
Skyvector said:
Not exactly. Although they will deny it now, they all voted NO thinking the company was bluffing. The general consensus was that nobody else could replace us because of some fairy tale shortage. Even though there was evidence to the contrary such as full classes at Mesa and PSA. Of course our MEC weaseled their way out of that by convincing everyone those airlines were down to phone interviews and scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Nobody believed a NO vote would result in what is happening now. Many are simply shifting gears to cover their tracks and hoping nobody notices.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely wrong. They all new the risks and decided to take the risk anyway.
 
tbstanto said:
But AAG is run by US Airways after the merger, and Envoy was much less profitable than the other two.
Click to expand...

Ok its just weird as you were talking about synergy and training etc etc, and Envoy is second only to L-XJT when it comes to experience with the ERJ-145 while PDT has never operated a jet type. What I'm trying to say is that this move is nothing but spiteful towards a labor group. All the other things you mentioned may or may not be true, but I'm not sure how much they play into it.
 
propsync said:
You understand the entire regional airline industry is a B scale.
Click to expand...

That's like saying that Delta MD-88 pilots are on a B scale when compared to Delta 757 pilots.

Seriously, people, read "Flying the Line: Volume 2." You'll learn something. The B scale was a real, serious battle fought in the '80s. It has no correlation to what is currently going on with regional carriers.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
That's like saying that Delta MD-88 pilots are on a B scale when compared to Delta 757 pilots.
Click to expand...

This isn't true. Compare a regional FO to a mainline FO, mainline FO is paid at least 150% times more, sometimes a lot more.

There isn't a 150% difference between delta FO payscales.
I looked it up, its around a 10% difference.
 
Ajax said:
Planning means nothing, a lot of people stuck at the regionals now certainly didn't plan on being there as long as the have, and no one planned to be a regional FO for seven years. Capping fo pay at four is disgusting.
Click to expand...

I'm still in the midst of reading the rest of this thread but:

Due to contract language by adding "large RJs" to the PSA certificate the new "4 year capped rate" is only a few cents behind the old 7 year rate. It actually ends up being more than the old rate by the time the OLD contract would've been up for renewal due to a yearly increase.

Disgusting as that is.....
 
Last edited:
slough said:
This isn't true. Compare a regional FO to a mainline FO, mainline FO is paid at least 150% times more, sometimes a lot more.

There isn't a 150% difference between delta FO payscales.
I looked it up, its around a 10% difference.
Click to expand...

Good grief, people, read "Flying the Line: Volume 2!" You truly are embarrassing yourselves by continuing to claim that this is a B scale. You can argue all you want about what fair pay rates are, but that has nothing to do with a B scale.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Good grief, people, read "Flying the Line: Volume 2!" You truly are embarrassing yourselves by continuing to claim that this is a B scale. You can argue all you want about what fair pay rates are, but that has nothing to do with a B scale.
Click to expand...

Im not arguing there is a B scale. I don't care. I just saw something posted that was so obviously wrong I thought it needed a rebuttal.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Good grief, people, read "Flying the Line: Volume 2!" You truly are embarrassing yourselves by continuing to claim that this is a B scale. You can argue all you want about what fair pay rates are, but that has nothing to do with a B scale.
Click to expand...
So everything has to happen like it did in the 80's for it to be a b scale?

Management knows they can't go down that way again, so they adapted. We as a profession have to adapt also, or we risk making the same mistakes. I know what's happening now in the regional sector is not as extreme as the 80's, but we are still pulling up the ladder, and that's making our profession worse than when we started. It's going to have consequences, just like it did in the 80's.
 
CFIscare said:
So everything has to happen like it did in the 80's for it to be a b scale?
Click to expand...

YES! Words mean things. Facts are facts. Two plus two does not equal seven!

"B Scale" has a definition. A B scale is when the same bargaining unit at the same airline has two separate pay scales delineated by when individual pilots were hired at the carrier. For example, a pilot hired on the "A" scale gets paid $70/hr at three years of longevity, but a pilot hired a year later on the "B" scale gets only $55/hr at the same three years of longevity.

Being paid less than you think that you deserve is not a B scale. Being paid at a different ratio of dollars per hour to seats flown is not a B scale. Being paid less for the same equipment than your peers at a different airline is not a B scale.

You can call these things "unfair" all you want. But don't call them a B scale.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
YES! Words mean things. Facts are facts. Two plus two does not equal seven!

"B Scale" has a definition. A B scale is when the same bargaining unit at the same airline has two separate pay scales delineated by when individual pilots were hired at the carrier. For example, a pilot hired on the "A" scale gets paid $70/hr at three years of longevity, but a pilot hired a year later on the "B" scale gets only $55/hr at the same three years of longevity.

Being paid less than you think that you deserve is not a B scale. Being paid at a different ratio of dollars per hour to seats flown is not a B scale. Being paid less for the same equipment than your peers at a different airline is not a B scale.

You can call these things "unfair" all you want. But don't call them a B scale.
Click to expand...
Wow, we are going in circles here. I am not talking about being paid less than what I think I deserve. I'm not talking about being paid at a different ratio of dollars per hour to seats flown. I'm not talking about being paid less for the same equipment than my peers. I'm talking about ONE airline having different pay scales/longevity for ONE pilot group.

Again, I use this example.

Pilots on property

Year 1 $25
Year 2 $30
Year 3 $33
Year 4 $35
Year 5 $37
Year 6 $39
Year 7 $41
Year 8 $43

Pilots not on property

Year 1 $25
Year 2 $30
Year 3 $33
Year 4 $35
Year 5 $35
Year 6 $35
Year 7 $35
Year 8 $35

Is this not the same thing???
 
CFIscare said:
Wow, we are going in circles here. I am not talking about being paid less than what I think I deserve. I'm not talking about being paid at a different ratio of dollars per hour to seats flown. I'm not talking about being paid less for the same equipment than my peers. I'm talking about ONE airline having different pay scales/longevity for ONE pilot group.

Again, I use this example.

Pilots on property

Year 1 $25
Year 2 $30
Year 3 $33
Year 4 $35
Year 5 $37
Year 6 $39
Year 7 $41
Year 8 $43

Pilots not on property

Year 1 $25
Year 2 $30
Year 3 $33
Year 4 $35
Year 5 $35
Year 6 $35
Year 7 $35
Year 8 $35

Is this not the same thing???
Click to expand...

New hire pilot's making the same.... The pay CAP isn't relative when using this as a pseudo b scale.... It's simply not. Pilot not on property is being paid what pilot's on property were paid when they also started. It then becomes not relative as they upgrade before year 4 of service.

Hate the game. By the way the new PSA MEC, a friend, voted AGAINST their deal.... Random food for thought....
 
CFIscare said:
Wow, we are going in circles here. I am not talking about being paid less than what I think I deserve. I'm not talking about being paid at a different ratio of dollars per hour to seats flown. I'm not talking about being paid less for the same equipment than my peers. I'm talking about ONE airline having different pay scales/longevity for ONE pilot group.

Again, I use this example.

Pilots on property

Year 1 $25
Year 2 $30
Year 3 $33
Year 4 $35
Year 5 $37
Year 6 $39
Year 7 $41
Year 8 $43

Pilots not on property

Year 1 $25
Year 2 $30
Year 3 $33
Year 4 $35
Year 5 $35
Year 6 $35
Year 7 $35
Year 8 $35

Is this not the same thing???
Click to expand...


Read flying the line!....Blah, Blah, Blah...I'm a professional negotiator!....Loud noises!
 
Im still very proud of Eagle/RAH/ExpressJet guys and gals!

The majority spoke! Like any organization or Union, decisions made with only present knowledge available at the time, company history of decision making, current and projected economic conditions.
 
Last edited:
meyers9163 said:
New hire pilot's making the same.... The pay CAP isn't relative when using this as a pseudo b scale.... It's simply not. Pilot not on property is being paid what pilot's on property were paid when they also started. It then becomes not relative as they upgrade before year 4 of service.
Click to expand...

That simply is not the case at Envoy, nor would it have been if they voted it in. You would have seen pilots capped out at the lower ceiling, making less than pilots before them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top