Pinnacle has reached a TA!!!

higney85 said:
You will AlWAYS get a -900 rate in the seat of a -900. The vacancy discussion is for a pay status. If you hold a -900 pay status everything you do is at -900 rates (fly,sick,vac,training, etc). If you do NOT hold a -900 vacancy spot you may still get qualified in both but will only make -900 rates in the seat. This entire dual qual is not an immediate thing, and the crew compliment of 3:1 would be arbitrated and could mean another 16 -900's before a single vacancy for -900 status worst case (not realistic). I have not seen the final language but there is also teirs to this -200/900 issue and at a certain number the pay arena gets revisited all together (50% fleet makeup is what I have been told). I had am MEC person explain this and I am sure their are far more details- waiting to see the language.
Click to expand...

If that's the case Higney, they sure did a bad job of explaining it that way on the conf call. It sure sounded like it was pay for the guys holding the vacancy and no one else.
 
cencal83406 said:
If that's the case Higney, they sure did a bad job of explaining it that way on the conf call. It sure sounded like it was pay for the guys holding the vacancy and no one else.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately much of the language is still being written so I can't truly wrap my head around it from reading some written language myself. Either way no ody will operate a -900 for less than a -900 rate. Sorry fir the gramatical errors in my previous post- working from the phone!
 
higney85 said:
Unfortunately much of the language is still being written so I can't truly wrap my head around it from reading some written language myself. Either way no ody will operate a -900 for less than a -900 rate. Sorry fir the gramatical errors in my previous post- working from the phone!
Click to expand...

I'm sure the 200 guys will appreciate that we can fly the 200 for the 900 rate.... lol:dunno: but like I said, the rates will look pretty similar.
 
The -900/-200 pay issue was apparently mis-represented. I HIGHLY doubt they'd sign off on -200 guys flying the -900 for -200 pay. If that were the case, I'd be the first in line to slap the negotiating team.

FYI, I almost watched it come to blows in the MEM crew room between two senior CAs. There were probably about 15 of us in there at the time, and most of us were just staring at the table. We've got WAAAAY too many people guys playing "I'm voting NO and you're a moron if you vote yes" attitude that haven't even read the TA.
 
kellwolf said:
The -900/-200 pay issue was apparently mis-represented. I HIGHLY doubt they'd sign off on -200 guys flying the -900 for -200 pay. If that were the case, I'd be the first in line to slap the negotiating team.

FYI, I almost watched it come to blows in the MEM crew room between two senior CAs. There were probably about 15 of us in there at the time, and most of us were just staring at the table. We've got WAAAAY too many people guys playing "I'm voting NO and you're a moron if you vote yes" attitude that haven't even read the TA.
Click to expand...
You think this is all stemming from the LEC or is it just hard to get people to see the soft money?

What are the rates btw?
 
jynxyjoe said:
You think this is all stemming from the LEC or is it just hard to get people to see the soft money?

What are the rates btw?
Click to expand...

Don't know what the rates are. I haven't seen it, yet there are plenty of people already talking about voting "no" because of them. :) Honestly, I think it's stemming from pilots being angry and frustrated at management. They somehow think that by voting down the TA they'll "stick it to the man." Some are convinced that if we vote this down, we'll get a better deal from management or be released by the NMB. The NMB has pretty much made it clear that the latter won't happen any time soon. Management isn't dumb, and they know this. Odds are, if we vote this one down, it's not gonna be a QUICK job to get another TA. They'll drag it out as long as they can. That being said, if it sucks, I'll be voting "no."
 
kellwolf said:
Don't know what the rates are. I haven't seen it, yet there are plenty of people already talking about voting "no" because of them. :) Honestly, I think it's stemming from pilots being angry and frustrated at management. They somehow think that by voting down the TA they'll "stick it to the man." Some are convinced that if we vote this down, we'll get a better deal from management or be released by the NMB. The NMB has pretty much made it clear that the latter won't happen any time soon. Management isn't dumb, and they know this. Odds are, if we vote this one down, it's not gonna be a QUICK job to get another TA. They'll drag it out as long as they can. That being said, if it sucks, I'll be voting "no."
Click to expand...
Well I'm interested to see the conclusion of all this.
 
kellwolf said:
The -900/-200 pay issue was apparently mis-represented. I HIGHLY doubt they'd sign off on -200 guys flying the -900 for -200 pay. If that were the case, I'd be the first in line to slap the negotiating team.

FYI, I almost watched it come to blows in the MEM crew room between two senior CAs. There were probably about 15 of us in there at the time, and most of us were just staring at the table. We've got WAAAAY too many people guys playing "I'm voting NO and you're a moron if you vote yes" attitude that haven't even read the TA.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the healthcare debate.

Rational thinkers on one side.

Emotion driven individuals on the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top