Allfourseasons wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 6:31 am
A northern Ontario medevac operator flying PC12 just came out with a PayScale that's on par with the narrowbody FO wages in the new TA for the first couple years. Ornge went to arbitration where the arbitrator distributed a majority of the extra money to the first officers who were significantly lagging behind. The unions original proposal had almost all the gains at the end of the captain scale. The arbitrator said not so fast. The idea that the arbitrator will hurt the new TA is flat out misinformation, and likely being spouted by those who will not be able to afford their 3rd or 4th sportscar if the FOs start at a more deserving wage. Embarrassing that this TA was even proposed to the group after all the WCC talk. Thanks YWG for your 3 votes for a base of 50 pilots.
So, why aren't you taking that job flying medevacs?
AC and the union (ACPA at the time) went through something like this before. The Embraer was grossly underpaid in comparison to the other fleets. The company agreed to give a substantial raise and the Embraer pilots and union were all high-fiving each other over their "big win". Then a year later the company announced they were being sold off - all the extra money being paid to the group was lost when the aircraft left. Getting big raises for 1st and 2nd year pilots is similar - as soon as you become a 3rd year pilot that benefit is lost.
The argument that a senior pilot will be buying another sailboat and the junior guy can't afford groceries is built on a false generalization. Of course these people exist but they are not representative.
I have talked to a range of pilots over this issue;
- 1 junior guy who's single and lives in his parent's basement - thinks the money is fine and looks forward to an upgrade in a couple years - voting yes.
- Another junior guy, wife, 1 kid, wife works, says money is OK, just bought a house in Barrie - voting yes because he sees the longterm pay as better
- Senior guy, 1 kid in university, another disabled living at home, wife doesn't work, no sports car, no sailboat, voting yes.
- senior guy with pension from previous career and part time job, voting no because of QoL issues.
The point is that breaking this down as a bunch of senior guys being greedy against a bunch of junior guys who are starving is overly simplistic.
I talked to one junior guy who thinks we should get more pay for the junior guys now at the expense of the senior guys and then in 4 years we should negotiate raises for the top end at the expense of the junior guys. When I point out that this would benefit the group he's in now and the group he will be in later and that it's somewhat self-serving - no reply.