Once a Captain...

Baronman said:
On face value, it's true....Many guys like us are looking for jobs where we'd be wearing 3 stripes again, and in many cases we'd be taking a pay cut to do so. But along with that we'd be looking forward to higher pay in a few years as well as most likely learning a new aircraft (probably something bigger), or if you went to a corporate flight department a new type of operation.

But being pushed back to the right seat IMO is a different situation, and definitely undesirable unlike the situations above where you actively seek a position. I consider myself lucky to have gotten over 1000tpic and for that I'm grateful but a bleak financial outlook for the immediate future causes a little stress.

And really I don't care about the stripes...I need to get PAID!
Click to expand...

Word to big bird, Holmes just said it.

How would your pay work out if you were able to get back to the right seat and start humping for some quality lines instead of taking the crap that you get as a reserve captain? Maybe if you went charter FO?
 
Keep the stripes, keep the pay. Even if you're in the right seat.

You're an ATP, and should be paid as one.

It'll also (perhaps) force our respective companies to do a much better job in hiring / staff planning.

If a captain is displaced, they should be paid their Captain rate plus a 5% override for the companies ignorance in poor planning.

We need to make it a non-benefit for the company to downgrade and displace people. Stop hiring til you furlough dip####s.
 
surreal1221 said:
Keep the stripes, keep the pay. Even if you're in the right seat.

You're an ATP, and should be paid as one.

It'll also (perhaps) force our respective companies to do a much better job in hiring / staff planning.

If a captain is displaced, they should be paid their Captain rate plus a 5% override for the companies ignorance in poor planning.

We need to make it a non-benefit for the company to downgrade and displace people. Stop hiring til you furlough dip####s.
Click to expand...

Ok let's be serious here.

I'm as much of a hard ass as the next guy, but seriously? Captain rate PLUS 5% for not having the same responsibilities? It'll never happen, nor would any union with a head on their shoulders ask for such an audacious thing. The idea is untenable at best.
 
Yeah, the 5% increase was a little reaching. . .BUT. . .if that's the only thing you're challenging, then great. :)

I really don't agree with people being punished (displacement) for their own companies' inability to properly forecast staffing needs. Just ridiculous.

Further, why should someone see a decrease in pay just because they are no longer sitting in the left seat? They, at one time, were viewed to be a viable Captain - they should still be able to draw that pay.

Anyway - I'm off to visit the dentist.
 
surreal1221 said:
Yeah, the 5% increase was a little reaching. . .BUT. . .if that's the only thing you're challenging, then great. :)

I really don't agree with people being punished (displacement) for their own companies' inability to properly forecast staffing needs. Just ridiculous.

Further, why should someone see a decrease in pay just because they are no longer sitting in the left seat? They, at one time, were viewed to be a viable Captain - they should still be able to draw that pay.

Anyway - I'm off to visit the dentist.
Click to expand...


CA's get that paycheck not because they passed a checkride, but b/c they have to make the tough decisions with the outcome resting on their shoulders. I knew that as an FO, but I didn't UNDERSTAND it 100% until I moved over to the right seat. Trust me, if I could have the pay and be an FO again, I'd do it tomorrow. But that's not a fair assessment and DEFINITELY not fair to the guys that would choose to stay CAs. There are plenty of FOs out there that actually have more experience than some of the CAs they fly with. We've hired guys here that were at Champion, and they've got more experience than I do. Should they get CA pay b/c they have an ATP?

There's reasonable requests, and then there's out of left field ideas. This one's WAAAY out in left field.
 
surreal1221 said:
Alright guys. . .how about a displaced CA rate? FO rate + 15%
Click to expand...

Why? As an FO you do the job an FO has to do. Just because you have a shiny type rating for the plane doesn't mean you are actually using it from the right seat. Lots of places type their FOs to begin with.

Don't get me wrong, it sucks for those guys who have to take the pay cut, but there are LOTS of things I'd rather see a union use bargaining capital on.
 
Ethan's right. The last thing we need is a gaggle of JetU guys thinking they deserve 15% higher pay b/c they have a type rating.....
 
jtrain609 said:
Word to big bird, Holmes just said it.

How would your pay work out if you were able to get back to the right seat and start humping for some quality lines instead of taking the crap that you get as a reserve captain? Maybe if you went charter FO?
Click to expand...

Well...I've been off reserve for a number of months, and have been working hard to get PAID. It's nice seeing the bank acct grow. I haven't really looked at many of the FO lines and I'm not sure how they'll look in the months to come.

Believe me, many of the soon-to-be displaced captains are licking their lips looking at the charter FO spot. It sounds like it would offer a good combination of QOL and a much more bearable financial hit. UNFORTUNATELY, a downgraded captain cannot displace any charter FO (even a more jr one!). Take a look on the 'pipe and there is a significant discussion regarding the issue. Personally I think it's BS, and the union is hearing about it!
 
Word, I'll go take a look. As you've probably noticed, the only thing I spend my time on the pipe doing is complaining about getting hosed this last year, only to have senior guys to tell me to eat it :)
 
That's what happens when you set up a seniority list within a seniority list that is based off of an interview. I've had a major issue with how charter operations were set up over there.

Granted I don't work there so it is nothing more then a passing interest, but if I did the union would have been hearing about it from me a long time ago.
 
Fair enough guys. . .to those who actually contributed and provided a rebutal to my comments.

I just have a fundamental issue with all airline management. I don't think that labor should be the one to always make sacrifices when it comes to being "demoted."

Further, I don't agree with the mentallity that it is okay for us to take the reduced pay because our respective companies couldn't provide a good enough staffing forecast that they have now had to displace people.

There is no incentive for the company to have a solid staffing plan when at any minute they can decide "Well - we have too many. . .time to displace. . ."
 
surreal1221 said:
Further, I don't agree with the mentallity that it is okay for us to take the reduced pay because our respective companies couldn't provide a good enough staffing forecast that they have now had to displace people.

There is no incentive for the company to have a solid staffing plan when at any minute they can decide "Well - we have too many. . .time to displace. . ."
Click to expand...

If you foresaw $140/bbl oil then you are in the wrong profession! You need to get on the NYMEX floor and make some real $$$.:rolleyes:
 
surreal1221 said:
Fair enough guys. . .to those who actually contributed and provided a rebutal to my comments.

I just have a fundamental issue with all airline management. I don't think that labor should be the one to always make sacrifices when it comes to being "demoted."

Further, I don't agree with the mentallity that it is okay for us to take the reduced pay because our respective companies couldn't provide a good enough staffing forecast that they have now had to displace people.

There is no incentive for the company to have a solid staffing plan when at any minute they can decide "Well - we have too many. . .time to displace. . ."
Click to expand...

For the eleventy millionth time...I don't think you'll find anyone on here who disagrees with the fundamentals of what you are saying about labor (well not really Labor, just ALPA) vs management. The best thing I can come up with to demonstrate it are apple fans.

Us: Like it....but are probably realistic about its abilities
133062672_164db5e9a0.jpg


You:
34jan29-fanboy.jpg
 
Now that's just one horrible photo. . .how'd you even come across that? Searching out dudes dressing up in Apple skin tight clothing?

Nevertheless. . .I don't necessarily think it's an unrealistic task to expect our respective companies to have some sort of ability to forecast staffing needs more than 1 month out.

Further, it's not OUR (labor, pilots) fault that they have that inability. Why should pilots be punished for their management's inability to develop a staffing plan that provides enough pilots to upgrade, with attrition, along with hiring guys at the bottom.

Sure, it's on the contract - so they can do it - but I know all of the junior captains I've flown with just these past two weeks are feeling pretty pissed off at the company for the companies inability to properly plan staffing trends.

I mean, it's not rocket science is it?

Why not provide a negative incentive to the company to perhaps minimize the potential for displacements, all the while - providing the pilot groups a certain "pain-killer" for those Captains who will be displaced. I could care less about the stripes, but the monetary factors being as they are - FO pay for someone who was making CA pay is going to hurt. FO pay plus a certain percent would be an equitable solution for all sides. It's not CA pay, but it's also not FO pay.

DV8Pilot said:
If you foresaw $140/bbl oil then you are in the wrong profession! You need to get on the NYMEX floor and make some real $$$.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I never even brought up the cost of the raw goods.

But if you really want to that's fine as well.

It's no secret here that I don't think labor should continue to be the only outlet for a company to "correct costs."

Nope, sorry - that's a broken record that needs to stop playing.

Transfer that increased cost to your consumer.
 
surreal1221 said:
Fair enough guys. . .to those who actually contributed and provided a rebutal to my comments.

I just have a fundamental issue with all airline management. I don't think that labor should be the one to always make sacrifices when it comes to being "demoted."

Further, I don't agree with the mentallity that it is okay for us to take the reduced pay because our respective companies couldn't provide a good enough staffing forecast that they have now had to displace people.

There is no incentive for the company to have a solid staffing plan when at any minute they can decide "Well - we have too many. . .time to displace. . ."
Click to expand...

No one really say $140 a barrel oil coming. No one really saw the majors going from hiring like mad to furloughing like mad. No one saw the huge reduction in capacity at the regional level coming (Boyd will SAY he did, but when you've been saying the same thing for decades, it'll eventually happen). The alternative is to short staff regionals so badly that you go from complaining about downgrades to complaining about not having enough people. Either way, you're still complaining. Case in point: Pinnacle. Insanely short staffed, yet we're one of the few not furloughing. We KNEW we never had enough people. Now, we're doing okay. Even if we had lost the ATL flying, furloughs probably wouldn't have been necessary b/c we were so short staffed. We've stopped hiring, but with the announcement we're keeping ATL, I expect that to ramp up again shortly.

So, there's your options: furlough or be so short staffed people quit or move laterally b/c they can't buy a day off.

As for staffing needs more than 1 month out....how long does it take to train an FO? CAs are little bit easier, but it still takes longer than a month once you figure in ground, sims and OE. Our vacancies are 3 months out, and that's hit or miss since people give a 2 week notice.....if that.



Oh, and Joe. You owe me a new pair of eyes after that pic.
 
I'd much rather have my company a little short staffed to where guys are going over MMG on reserve, and the building of lines are having to exceed an 85 hour average instead of sending people to the street and displacing captains.

That's also another damn incentive to having the company utilizing a good staffing forecast. Lines can be built to 75 hours, and no reserve pilot exceeding MMG.

That to me is a much better option then seeing furloughs and displacements.

Minimum days off are still in the contract, and seniority will obviously dictate who has the better schedules and what not. . .but at least people have jobs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top