Mesa 700 furloughs?

surreal1221 said:
What's the word on compensation if that were to happen.

But, most importantly, let's hope not.
Click to expand...

See that's the thing. The company said "Hey, let's agree to it now and work out the details later." Riiiiiiight. Like that's worked out well for us in the past. Basically, the want a Skywest style override, but that would mean sick time, guarantee, vacation etc is paid at the -200 rate. That's some serious lost change right there. If you fly most of your month on the -900 and have two weeks of vacation, you're getting shafted on your vacation pay. Then there's the safety issue of flying the -900 or the -200 for months on end, then getting dropped into the one you haven't flown in 3 months during high winds and thunder storms. How are PCs gonna be done? If you fly the -900 all the time, do they expect you to walk into the -200 sim as take your PC? The -200 sims are in MEM, the -900 sim is in YUL. I know how the company's gonna want that to go. WAAAAY too many issues to work out before settling this little gem.
 
Safety.

Your ammunition.

Single lists for each airframe. Protects jobs and defends the overall health of your company by not having the liability of a 7 mont -200 only guy pranking a -900 on in a weather situation. . .I could go on with far more grusome details, but you get the idea.

;)
 
I think people are making WAY too big a deal about the differences in landing the 200 and the 700/900. If you want to attack it from a separate list/pay vision, fine, although personally I really like have a blended pay rate and the ability to fly either, but safety isn't really an issue here.
 
Not an issue. . .yet.

And let's hope it never becomes an issue.

That said, my primary motivation is to protect jobs, pay, and QOL. If you have to use the safety bullet to maintain the security of those three previous things, then so be it.

It's my understanding that PSA's pay system for flying different airframes is significantly different than Skywest's.
 
That's true. Blend != override.

I just worry about people screaming 'safety' over something like this (which clearly isn't) and you start to get a Boy who cried Wolf effect.
 
Although practically completely different airplanes, the 200 and 700/900 both are airplanes, land it. I think its safe to say most on here who flight instructed could go between the 152,172,182, Seminole, and Duchess instructing in one day without any safety issues landing the different airplanes.
 
i dont think its a saftey issue
NWA guys fly the DC9 30-40-50
Airbus 319-320
757 200-300
Delta flys 757-767
Almost every airline flies all models of the 737
Skywest Flies all CRJ's
 
Trip7 said:
Although practically completely different airplanes, the 200 and 700/900 both are airplanes, land it. I think its safe to say most on here who flight instructed could go between the 152,172,182, Seminole, and Duchess instructing in one day without any safety issues landing the different airplanes.
Click to expand...

Of course, land it. Duh?

But it seems you're ignoring the reality that we are labor. We should be looking out for our best interests, through whatever avenue(s) possible.

I don't know, might not be too important to you, but I don't get all giddy about more pilots hitting the street. I also certainly don't get aroused about the notion of having to send more to the street in the future from any company thanks to measures management have at their disposal (PBS, multi-airframe qualified crews, etc.)
 
BobDDuck said:
That's true. Blend != override.

I just worry about people screaming 'safety' over something like this (which clearly isn't) and you start to get a Boy who cried Wolf effect.
Click to expand...

I agree. Its not a safety issue at all. After all, the 757/767 is a common type. There is a blended rate there, and no one cries safety because their properly compensated.
 
surreal1221 said:
I also certainly don't get aroused about the notion of having to send more to the street in the future from any company thanks to measures management have at their disposal (PBS, multi-airframe qualified crews, etc.)
Click to expand...

While I agree that sending guys to the street is never good, I'd counter that being multi airframe qualified (and not on reserve) is a huge advantage to quality of life, especially if they pay the same. It increases the number of lines of flying/PBS trips built that you can take and not have to worry about losing pay.

Now, as a reserve it means you can get thrown into a lot more situations to cover, which does have it's drawbacks.
 
I would further submit a safer way to protect jobs is to ensure the company crews a specific number of crews per airframe, regardless of type.

If you need 5.0 crews per frame, you need 5.0. They can use PBS, or allowing pilots to fly all derivatives of a common type under a blended rate.

The number can be specified in the CBA, or it can be a "virtual" number built by work rules, defining a specific % of reserve coverage, and so forth.
 
This is what I found out the company wanted to do yesterday: both sides agree that it happens, work out the details later. If they can't agree it goes to an arbitrator. Anyone else remember the fiasco over the -900 pay rates? Yeah, we'd be setting ourselves up for the same thing. Union said "No thanks, we're working this out and getting it on paper first," gave a couple of options and got nothing back more or less. If the company suddenly decides they don't want to go dual qualification, we've got a TA. Seriously, this came out of left field at the last minute and is the only hold up. I almost wonder if the company was grasping at straws to find something else.

As for the dual qual thing, maybe it's just the way things are set up training wise here (and I wouldn't doubt it), but the check airmen that keep the dual qualifications are the ones saying it's a pain.
 
surreal1221 said:
Of course, land it. Duh?

But it seems you're ignoring the reality that we are labor. We should be looking out for our best interests, through whatever avenue(s) possible.

I don't know, might not be too important to you, but I don't get all giddy about more pilots hitting the street. I also certainly don't get aroused about the notion of having to send more to the street in the future from any company thanks to measures management have at their disposal (PBS, multi-airframe qualified crews, etc.)
Click to expand...

Regarding PBS. As the highest cost contract regional in the DCI portfolio by far, what else do you suggest we do? Just hold on to as many pilot jobs as possible til DAL starts taking planes away due contract cost violation?

Stop making out PBS to be so evil. PBS makes an airline run more efficiently because airlines are in business to make money, not to load up on as many pilot jobs as possible.
 
You're right Marcus. Crystal Clear.

You see, I couldn't live with knowing that I made the decision to effectively send more pilots to the street. Which is what our local union leadership is going to accomplish.

Our task is to fly planes and to protect ourselves. Let the company figure out how to make it run more efficiently.

Now, I understand you have an undergraduate degree in Aviation Management. Wonderful. So, it makes since that you feel the way you do and are willing to throw your fellow line pilots under the bus - or worse - out to the street under a notion of "efficiency."

You see, it's about prioritizes. I want to protect jobs. The company wants to run an efficient system. Excellent, put it in writing in our FOM, we'll do it. That's what we do, we follow directions. Make it happen company. We'll handle our task of flying safe and protecting our own while the company handle's their task of making sure we operate our airplanes on a good schedule in an efficient manner (project APU, various other fuel conservation measures, proper staffing models [unlike what you guys have been enjoying this month], saving costs on parking, etc).

But it's a weak argument to fall to when they tell you "Oh, you're too expensive. . .you guys need to low ball the rest of the profession so we STAY in business." Okay, gee thanks guys. Wonderful. Oh right, let's not forget Marcus that we're actually experiencing negative growth over the next year. We've already been rightsized once and it seems that you're quite comfortable knowing that some more of your peers might hit the street because you've got your little no furlough clause shield up.

I'll stir the next pot of kool-aid for you, don't worry.
 
There are three groups that PBS is good for. The uuber senior, those that get a line that would be on reserve with hard lines, and management staffing models.

With no other change PBS probably cuts ~5% of the number of pilots needed depending on the PBS build rules etc. Thats all the furloughs at Continental plus 100 more pilots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top