Eaglevoy new TA

If Delta put 110 seats in a 777 would it pay group one rates?

The 190 doesn't compare at all to the 717. Doesn't excuse the rates, but they are in different leagues.
 
Kingairer said:
Im probably in the minority, but im OK with that Payrate for the E190. THe ugly truth is, the more expensive it gets, the less likely they are to add to the fleet type. And instead of getting more E190s (or getting rid of them) youll see republic and Envoy flying E175s (with capts making about $80/hr).
Click to expand...
The iffy part of the 190 scale is the company could scarp the 319 and go nuts with 190's, almost like bringing a regional in house at that point. Yes it still pays better but it also pays quite a bit less than baby bus rates.
 
Seggy said:
Is that ALPA's fault @wheelsup?
Click to expand...
Under ALPA it paid $25/hr. When the APA came into the fray it went to $40, and will go to $70 in 2016 (or 2015 if the company and union can agree to a JCBA). I'd say APA did a whole heck of a lot more than ALPA ever did for that property. ALPA's merger "lack of" policy destroyed any hope of that group ever coming together.
 
BobDDuck said:
View attachment 29574

I guess. For us it isn't because we operate ours with 123 seats in some and 118 is others (and a few with 115). Over the next year the entire fleet will be transitioned to 128 seats. Upon checking, I see Delta operates theirs with 110 seats so for them it is.
Click to expand...

Let's not split hairs here, the a/c are all withing about 10 seats of each other. So we can then consider the 717 a group 1 a/c. Either way even ignoring delta we can look at JetBlue with it's current non-union negotiated contract pays $30 more per hour on the exact same a/c.

I understand the whole point in getting it "on property" but i'd rather not keep kicking the can down the road. Why on earth the e190 doesn't pay at the minimum what jetblue pays is beyond me.
 
skyw82 said:
Isn't the 717 considered Group 1?
Click to expand...

We don't use that. That's "Pay Banding" and it's something we don't do.

Your comparison is "apples and oranges".

It's not splitting hairs, but it's more than seats, it's also speed, payload and "other".
 
wheelsup said:
Under ALPA it paid $25/hr. When the APA came into the fray it went to $40, and will go to $70 in 2016 (or 2015 if the company and union can agree to a JCBA). I'd say APA did a whole heck of a lot more than ALPA ever did for that property. ALPA's merger "lack of" policy destroyed any hope of that group ever coming together.
Click to expand...

Well actually ALPA did negotiate better pay rates but some of your coworkers don't understand the definition of binding arbitration and they were put in place.
 
wheelsup said:
Under ALPA it paid $25/hr. When the APA came into the fray it went to $40, and will go to $70 in 2016 (or 2015 if the company and union can agree to a JCBA). I'd say APA did a whole heck of a lot more than ALPA ever did for that property. ALPA's merger "lack of" policy destroyed any hope of that group ever coming together.
Click to expand...

Uhhhh. Wasn't Airways "USAPA"?
 
bLizZuE said:
This has nothing to do with negotiation (in)experience or lack of professional negotiators. These people have been involved for quite a while as the "vocal minority" and have been the opposition to anything that was done under the previous leadership. These guys threw a hissy fit when the deal in March was put out and said there was no way the company could staff it, we deserved better, and anyone that voted for it was weak and ruining the industry. Fast forward to today and you have a completely different (worse) deal in front of you and the same group saying "this is the best we could do" while simultaneously refusing to admit their mistakes or explain their new rationale.
Click to expand...

This is what bothers me the most right now. Obviously I'm voting YES because the alternative is much, much worse. But that doesn't change the fact that Ray, Sam, Herb, and others did a complete 180 from this last March and will probably REFUSE to admit they were wrong. I would like for just one of them to come clean and say they misjudged the situation earlier this year, but none of them will. We needed that deal back in March but people like Ray, Sam, and others who have since flowed to AA like Val had everybody convinced it was just one big bluff by AA. That nobody could staff our flying. There were times when it seemed like I was the only one with a shred of common sense around here who was calling BS on all of it.

But whatever. It's over and in the past. Thanks to Ray and his gang this is the best deal we are going to see. It needs to pass so that we can move on to brighter days and actually have a future that doesn't involve needing to make a lateral move.
 
wheelsup said:
If Delta put 110 seats in a 777 would it pay group one rates?
Click to expand...

Wait, what? Delta doesn't have pay banding.

Are you asking if American put 110 seats in a 777 would it pay group 1 rates?

And no, it wouldn't. The 777 is a named aircraft. Group one is for none named aircraft with 76<118 seats.
 
BobDDuck said:
Wait, what? Delta doesn't have pay banding.

Are you asking if American put 110 seats in a 777 would it pay group 1 rates?

And no, it wouldn't. The 777 is a named aircraft. Group one is for none named aircraft with 76<118 seats.
Click to expand...
No what I'm saying is just because a certain config has xx seats in it, doesn't make it reasonable to pay less.

A la the Republic fiasco.
 
Seggy said:
Well actually ALPA did negotiate better pay rates but some of your coworkers don't understand the definition of binding arbitration and they were put in place.
Click to expand...
I think it speaks volumes to just how ridiculous the Nic was when a large amount of guys said no to large pay raises to keep the companies separate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top