New Alaska TA

I'm too new to this business to intelligently weigh in, but I will say that a lot of my friends aren't super enthused with it. I'm relatively indifferent at the moment, though year 2024 pay for what I;ll be at that point seems decent
 
///AMG said:
I'm too new to this business to intelligently weigh in, but I will say that a lot of my friends aren't super enthused with it. I'm relatively indifferent at the moment, though year 2024 pay for what I;ll be at that point seems decent
Click to expand...
I’ve been reading through the proposed new reserve rules in the executive summary and on the podcast, and I have say there are some serious improvements. I think the pay rates aren’t going to keep people around though (or maybe even attract them).
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
What specifically do you not like (just curious, to learn)?
Click to expand...
There's a lot to like, and that's why the things that are absent, or subpar, are so disappointing. The retro pay that is a flat $2k/Month, regardless of longevity, credit hours, etc, is garbage. So someone hired last October gets the same retro pay as me, someone hired 6 years ago who has been hosed over and over for 6 years by this company? Someone hired a year ago, who never had to suffer the BS slope this company refused to fix, gets the same as me?? No!! And no, I don't mean pay the new guys less, I mean pay ME and everyone else what we deserve!!



30% or more of our flying has WOCL segments and we don't go for a WOCL override, despite the fact it exists at JetBlue? Wouldn't want to make it too expensive for this company to slowly kill its pilots! NO!!



18 days of reserve, No!! And now we're responsible for doing the company's job for them by checking our schedule at the end of a duty period, and by remaining contactable throughout an entire RAP, even after a trip is assigned?? How are those not QOL concessions in what is the OPPOSITE of a concessionary environment?



Reassignment language is a lot better, 150% for any reassignment seems reasonable, but as far as I can read, it only applies AWAY from base? I need to be paid premium if my trip, that I bought with my seniority, is changed at all, prior to report or after I leave base. If that's not clarified to apply to both in base and out of base reassignments then that's another tick in the "No" column.



Where's the 120% pay over 80hrs of credit? Wasn't that proposed in the March proposal? It was a good thing then and it would be a good thing now, but it isn't there, unless I missed it.



There are a lot of good things too. ALPA PBS and ALPA pairing construction is great. But WHEN, not if, the company is late to implement it, will the "penalty" be worse than the benefit of them dragging their feet like they always do? Calendar days off for reserves is great, but it should have been 13/14. LCR/LCN/SCR seems like a good enough system I guess. Reserves able to fly again on days off for pay over guarantee is great. I can finally do here what I used to do at two different regionals! Scope looks great to me, especially the code share growth language. I hope the carve out for Horizon's heavy ERJ's applies only to THOSE airframes, i.e. should they ever leave the fleet they can only be replaced by 86000 jets. Widening the credit window is a good thing. Moving to one ARC number per day is great. Again, finally this place will be as user friendly as my regionals were! LOL.



I guess to sum up my thoughts: Basically I agree with the people saying that a few years ago, or on 4/1/2020, this would have been a great deal. However, we're two and a half years past that, only getting paid for 11 months of that and knock-off retro at that, in an unprecedented environment. This isn't the time for an "OK" deal, it's the time to get all of the good things AND none of the BS things, laymens' vague prognostications about "the economy" be da@&ed. As far as I'm concerned, the improvements amount to getting us on par with where everyone else was years ago but not really exceeding that (ALPA pairing construction being a possible exception), AND they're stiffing me on upwards of $40k in retro. That's why I'm a no.



We can do better.
 
Baronman said:
So you’re seeking roughly 60k in retro?
Click to expand...

Yes, based on my average monthly credit since 4/2020 and pay scale delta (just rough math). I'm not even really a stickler for the details of how it's paid out/calculated, but it needs to at least be close. 22k is not close, not by a mile.
 
Alaskan said:
There's a lot to like, and that's why the things that are absent, or subpar, are so disappointing. The retro pay that is a flat $2k/Month, regardless of longevity, credit hours, etc, is garbage. So someone hired last October gets the same retro pay as me, someone hired 6 years ago who has been hosed over and over for 6 years by this company? Someone hired a year ago, who never had to suffer the BS slope this company refused to fix, gets the same as me?? No!! And no, I don't mean pay the new guys less, I mean pay ME and everyone else what we deserve!!



30% or more of our flying has WOCL segments and we don't go for a WOCL override, despite the fact it exists at JetBlue? Wouldn't want to make it too expensive for this company to slowly kill its pilots! NO!!



18 days of reserve, No!! And now we're responsible for doing the company's job for them by checking our schedule at the end of a duty period, and by remaining contactable throughout an entire RAP, even after a trip is assigned?? How are those not QOL concessions in what is the OPPOSITE of a concessionary environment?



Reassignment language is a lot better, 150% for any reassignment seems reasonable, but as far as I can read, it only applies AWAY from base? I need to be paid premium if my trip, that I bought with my seniority, is changed at all, prior to report or after I leave base. If that's not clarified to apply to both in base and out of base reassignments then that's another tick in the "No" column.



Where's the 120% pay over 80hrs of credit? Wasn't that proposed in the March proposal? It was a good thing then and it would be a good thing now, but it isn't there, unless I missed it.



There are a lot of good things too. ALPA PBS and ALPA pairing construction is great. But WHEN, not if, the company is late to implement it, will the "penalty" be worse than the benefit of them dragging their feet like they always do? Calendar days off for reserves is great, but it should have been 13/14. LCR/LCN/SCR seems like a good enough system I guess. Reserves able to fly again on days off for pay over guarantee is great. I can finally do here what I used to do at two different regionals! Scope looks great to me, especially the code share growth language. I hope the carve out for Horizon's heavy ERJ's applies only to THOSE airframes, i.e. should they ever leave the fleet they can only be replaced by 86000 jets. Widening the credit window is a good thing. Moving to one ARC number per day is great. Again, finally this place will be as user friendly as my regionals were! LOL.



I guess to sum up my thoughts: Basically I agree with the people saying that a few years ago, or on 4/1/2020, this would have been a great deal. However, we're two and a half years past that, only getting paid for 11 months of that and knock-off retro at that, in an unprecedented environment. This isn't the time for an "OK" deal, it's the time to get all of the good things AND none of the BS things, laymens' vague prognostications about "the economy" be da@&ed. As far as I'm concerned, the improvements amount to getting us on par with where everyone else was years ago but not really exceeding that (ALPA pairing construction being a possible exception), AND they're stiffing me on upwards of $40k in retro. That's why I'm a no.



We can do better.
Click to expand...

I would listen to the podcasts coming out and read the full Executive Summary (33 page document), if you haven’t already.
 
Alaskan said:
Yes, based on my average monthly credit since 4/2020 and pay scale delta (just rough math). I'm not even really a stickler for the details of how it's paid out/calculated, but it needs to at least be close. 22k is not close, not by a mile.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately that’s not how retro works, if we got it, it would be a gradual rate increase up to the TA amount at signing. Think 2-4% a year from amendable date till today. That comes straight from a rep.
 
Alaskan said:
This isn't the time for an "OK" deal, it's the time to get all of the good things AND none of the BS things, laymens' vague prognostications about "the economy" be da@&ed.
Click to expand...
Why? Our negotiating position in six months if we vote this down may be way worse if the economy has really declined. Economic factors are important. Is it worth gambling on $20k more and some minor gains to possibly have less leverage or the company to drag it out a year +?

It’s nice to think about what we “deserve” or how this should punish the company, but I believe that the negotiating committee really did get the best deal that they could. It was approved unanimously by the MEC, that says something.

This is far from the slam dunk we had hoped for, but the gains from the current contract are stratospheric. We had such a high hill to climb and they got us industry leading.
 
Skåning said:
Why? Our negotiating position in six months if we vote this down may be way worse if the economy has really declined. Economic factors are important. Is it worth gambling on $20k more and some minor gains to possibly have less leverage or the company to drag it out a year +?

It’s nice to think about what we “deserve” or how this should punish the company, but I believe that the negotiating committee really did get the best deal that they could. It was approved unanimously by the MEC, that says something.

This is far from the slam dunk we had hoped for, but the gains from the current contract are stratospheric. We had such a high hill to climb and they got us industry leading.
Click to expand...

given there’s not a bunch of hidden language junk I would vote yes on this in a heartbeat.
 
Soul Brotha' said:
Web boards/forums are generally not the views of the pilot groups. They(most vocal) tend to believe for whatever reason that their thinking is what everyone should be thinking. That’s just not reality. Most smart people look at the whole thing then make a decision.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Pilots need to manage risk and asses conditions. Concerning how quick a lot of loud people have already made up their mind (one or the other). The implications of their vote will last years, give it the regard it deserves.
 
Listening to the podcasts and reading the executive summary has been very educational. The union has really done their homework. I’m impressed by the gains in reserve work rules, vacation (even though everyone seems to be getting hung up on the low vacation day credit), the new guarantee, and the new bidding process. I still don’t know how the scope stacks up compared the big 3 and I don’t think the starting pay is going to attract as many pilots as management thinks it will. I believe the work rules in the TA will benefit the pilots as nearly the same as the pay rates will. I’m a little disappointed at the rollout timeline for much of the TA, but I’d much rather them take the time to implement it correctly. Also the pilots who have lived through this whole contract cycle are getting jipped out of a real retro check. I’m sure it’s not perfect, and maybe they left a some money on the table (eg the “snap up” is not a true snap up), but I won’t be sad if it passes especially since I will probably be in reserve for a while. However I have to include a disclaimer that I can’t even vote and I’ve never been through a real contract cycle/vote before and I simply don’t know what I don’t know.
 
Same. I'm just gonna trust that the folks who know what all of this means (and are voting eligible), vote appropriately for all of our best interests, whatever that vote may be. Keep us little guys in your minds when you press send, though of course you will anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top