No pilot recalls until Spring 2023???

[Fanblade]

Reading through these old contracts, the pay rates tell a pretty straightforward story. We made very solid gains 1998-2003. These were completely wiped out in CCAA in 2003. 15% across the board pay cut, a further 5% cut on the A320, and then (I think) at least one year of frozen wages before a reopener in 2006. That’s a big hill to climb coming out the other side, and our wage increases since then haven’t regained what we lost.

That's just mainline wages. Now take into account the VOLUNTARY pay cuts since 2011:

Rouge
Cargo.
New hire pay.
FO and RP pay
Pension

It's these add on losses that start to produce total losses approaching 30% in some cases.

Then ask yourself why are we continuing to take pay cuts way after CCAA?

How does one regain lost ground when taking pay cuts?

How come the US pilots were able to climb their hill? Why did we continue to roll back?

Why is ACPA defending it's track record in the face of this stark reality?

How long on this trajectory before we never recover from our voluntary pay cuts layered on top of the CCAA losses?

Why does ACPA think pre CCAA wages are not a realistic target to even consider as a goal?

Why are those who have decided enough is enough called rebels? Think about it. If you want to claw back losses you are a rebel?????

We even went through a governance review in an attempt to fix this association. We didn't follow through on implementation properly.

If ACPA is truely happy with their track record, are you comfortable with them continuing to represent?

How many second chances are you willing to give with your career in the balance? With your families livelihood in the balance?

That in a nut shell is my thought process and why I have come to the conclusion that we need a real union.

[Lt. Daniel Kaffee]

That's just mainline wages. Now take into account the VOLUNTARY pay cuts since 2011:

Rouge
Cargo.
New hire pay.
FO and RP pay
Pension

ROUGE - FOS July 2012
New hire pay - FOS July 2012
FO and RP pay - FOS July 2012
Pension - FOS July 2012

Doesn't sound very voluntary to me.

How are those US Airlines DB pension plans doing these days?

[Fanblade]

That's just mainline wages. Now take into account the VOLUNTARY pay cuts since 2011:

Rouge
Cargo.
New hire pay.
FO and RP pay
Pension

ROUGE - FOS July 2012
New hire pay - FOS July 2012
FO and RP pay - FOS July 2012
Pension - FOS July 2012

Doesn't sound very voluntary to me.

How are those US Airlines DB pension plans doing these days?

ACPA VOLUNTARILY entered into an Memorandum of Agreement in 2011 that created Rouge, expanded new hire pay to four years, reduced FO and RP pay and ended the DB pension.

The membership said no. Not ACPA. ACPA pushed for a yes vote. The membership responded with recalls. Later in 2012 Final Offer Selection imposed what ACPA had previously voluntarily agreed to.

If ACPA hadn’t voluntarily agreed to TA1, none of the losses would have happened. Instead the arbitration would have been based on our current contract.

Your version is a cynical rewrite of history that tries to off load responsibility. It’s a false narrative. One that tries to avoid accountability. It might work in an echo chamber or on members who were not there. No one else.

The sad part is you know this. But you say it anyway.

You need to stop and think before you make the pension comments. We lost ours too. It’s gone. Voluntarily given away with almost nothing in return. It’s like you forgot some of us are not on a DB. Then we had to give more Rouge concessions to fix the DB giveaway.

The lost US DB pension is now a very lucrative, 100% company paid, DC pension.

How does that compare to CWIPP?

[acpaleaks]

That's just mainline wages. Now take into account the VOLUNTARY pay cuts since 2011:

Rouge
Cargo.
New hire pay.
FO and RP pay
Pension

ROUGE - FOS July 2012
New hire pay - FOS July 2012
FO and RP pay - FOS July 2012
Pension - FOS July 2012

Doesn't sound very voluntary to me.

How are those US Airlines DB pension plans doing these days?

16% fully funded DC by the company on wages 40% higher than us sounds pretty good to me. Compared to this piss poor CWIPP. United has year two captains just awarded. They'll be seeing upwards of $40,000-$50,000 USD cash cleared into their pension. And once covid is over, they'll see another $30,000-$60,000 in profit share and the few I know in the USA throw that into a Roth and registered account. It's so much better the CWIPP is a joke. I'll be lucky to have 90k a year in 2050+ dollars when I retire. Probably even less given inflation is going to take off and our money is going to be even more worthless. I don't think you really realize how many AC pilots would walk away tomorrow if they could get a job at one of the big 3. Fairly Sr ones I've spoken too as well.

These guys are going to walk away with 3-4 million in investments over 30 years at a modest 5%. Not including what they do with their profit share, or 40% higher pay (real estate? save? invest?). You ACPA guys love to talk shit about their pension but I would take it in a heartbeat over the garbage you got us with this CWIPP.


Also FOS was and always will be a failing of ACPA of that day. They fucked up. They didn't negotiate the way the members wanted, and then when new people were sent to follow up after the NO vote they were uninformed and again fucked up showing up to arbitration thinking they could "start over"...

All on ACPA. All of it. And then of course the aftermath of not taking fos to court like our postal carrier friends did and instead did a reopener, members voted (blindly not knowing there was another option) and cemented fos losses.

[acpaleaks]

That's just mainline wages. Now take into account the VOLUNTARY pay cuts since 2011:

Rouge
Cargo.
New hire pay.
FO and RP pay
Pension

ROUGE - FOS July 2012
New hire pay - FOS July 2012
FO and RP pay - FOS July 2012
Pension - FOS July 2012

Doesn't sound very voluntary to me.

How are those US Airlines DB pension plans doing these days?

ACPA VOLUNTARILY entered into an Memorandum of Agreement in 2011 that created Rouge, expanded new hire pay to four years, reduced FO and RP pay and ended the DB pension.

The membership said no. Not ACPA. ACPA pushed for a yes vote. The membership responded with recalls. Later in 2012 Final Offer Selection imposed what ACPA had previously voluntarily agreed to.

If ACPA hadn’t voluntarily agreed to TA1, none of the losses would have happened. Instead the arbitration would have been based on our current contract.

Your version is a cynical rewrite of history that tries to off load responsibility. It’s a false narrative. One that tries to avoid accountability. It might work in an echo chamber or on members who were not there. No one else.

The sad part is you know this. But you say it anyway.

You need to stop and think before you make the pension comments. We lost ours too. It’s gone. Voluntarily given away with almost nothing in return. It’s like you forgot some of us are not on a DB. Then we had to give more Rouge concessions to fix the DB giveaway.

The lost US DB pension is now a very lucrative, 100% company paid, DC pension.

How does that compare to CWIPP?

[Transition9er2]

interesting discussion. no one is going to change any minds on here, so i'm not going to try. will let the voting do the talking in 2-3 yrs.

as for historical contract you'll find em here http://negotech.labour.gc.ca/cgi-bin/Re ... =&p30=&q5=

No fight in this game from my end but thought I’d give this a bump from Redbus. Does the ‘95 contract in the attachment answer the questions going back and forth here? How does this compare to the current contract?

T.

[Fanblade]

interesting discussion. no one is going to change any minds on here, so i'm not going to try. will let the voting do the talking in 2-3 yrs.

as for historical contract you'll find em here http://negotech.labour.gc.ca/cgi-bin/Re ... =&p30=&q5=

No fight in this game from my end but thought I’d give this a bump from Redbus. Does the ‘95 contract in the attachment answer the questions going back and forth here? How does this compare to the current contract?

T.

The problem is getting a proper understanding of the losses. Since 2003 we have had cuts layered on top of cuts making it difficult.

Kind of like opening a credit card statement and initially looking at it in disbelief. Initially it’s denial. No way, I didn’t do that!

Then you go through it line by line and realize……. Crap, I did do that.

1995 is but one line in that credit card statement. We need all the lines presented at once to actually have a proper understanding of the bill.

And make no mistake. This bill is expensive.

[a220hereicome]

acpaleaks.

“I'll be lucky to have 90k a year in 2050+ dollars when I retire.”

Some context please? If you were hired at 25 that’s a terrible pension (and doesn’t really sound right). $90K/year in 2050 is only about $52K/year today.

If you were hired at 45, different story. A DB member retiring today with 20 years in the plan would be lucky to crack $80K/year as a pension.

Just curious.

[acpaleaks]

acpaleaks.

“I'll be lucky to have 90k a year in 2050+ dollars when I retire.”

Some context please? If you were hired at 25 that’s a terrible pension (and doesn’t really sound right). $90K/year in 2050 is only about $52K/year today.

If you were hired at 45, different story. A DB member retiring today with 20 years in the plan would be lucky to crack $80K/year as a pension.

Just curious.

I mis wrote. I mean 90k in today dollars in 2050. I was hired early 30s so I'll have 30ish in once I retire and I don't really plan to go to 65 because I don't want to die at 67.

That 90k is also best case scenario if I succumb myself to being bottom bitch on the highest paying equipment I can hold for the next 30 years. I should be able to hold 5+ years of WB CA near the end so compare that 90k to what these top end DB guys are getting... 170-180k. Not even close and anyone that keeps saying the CWIPP is "basically a DB" hasn't looked that closely at it. It's basically instead of "best 5" it's "best 30"... So you're pretty much forced to go to the highest paid position and be Jr for the rest of your career. If I was on a DB I'd bid WB FO and sit there until the last 5 years.

[Transition9er2]

interesting discussion. no one is going to change any minds on here, so i'm not going to try. will let the voting do the talking in 2-3 yrs.

as for historical contract you'll find em here http://negotech.labour.gc.ca/cgi-bin/Re ... =&p30=&q5=

No fight in this game from my end but thought I’d give this a bump from Redbus. Does the ‘95 contract in the attachment answer the questions going back and forth here? How does this compare to the current contract?

T.

The problem is getting a proper understanding of the losses. Since 2003 we have had cuts layered on top of cuts making it difficult.

Kind of like opening a credit card statement and initially looking at it in disbelief. Initially it’s denial. No way, I didn’t do that!

Then you go through it line by line and realize……. Crap, I did do that.

1995 is but one line in that credit card statement. We need all the lines presented at once to actually have a proper understanding of the bill.

And make no mistake. This bill is expensive.

Ya I get that, but from what I can tell (unless I’m wrong) every ACPA contract is in this attachment going back to 1995. Unless I’m missing something, isn’t there enough information within this link to give you guys all the answers you need?

I’m curious to see if Alti can run another breakdown showing losses with these contracts as proof points. So far this thread has turned into some interesting reading.

T.

[a220hereicome]

Fanblade.

Trying my best to compare apples to apples. The $90K/year CWIPP pension (2021 dollars) you’re estimating for yourself for a retirement at age 60 is based on about 28 years of service, right? You said you were hired early 30s. A DB guy retiring this year with 28 YOS would be capped at $132K/year pension. Not $170K or $180K like you said. I asked a pension rep to do the numbers for me. Still above the $90K you came up with, but hopefully more accurate.

I don’t know what career projection you’re using for your estimate, but it probably assumes only 2% earnings growth with no CWIPP benefit increases (that’s what’s in the ACPA pension estimator). I’m hoping we do better than that over the long term, which would increase that $90K amount quite a bit.

Anyways, you’re right, in the CWIPP plan you have to work for it. No best five option like the DB plan. I’ve made my peace with that and will plan accordingly. But that’s also true of any DC plan in the US. You won’t see those big numbers you quoted if you stay WB FO for your whole career. You would have to bid “bottom bitch”, to quote you.

Cheers.

[acpaleaks]

That's still $40k or so more, all things equal....

I am using the pension estimator choosing the highest paid projected status as soon as possible. The pension calculator also accounts for a pay rate of WB CA in the $400s... I'm sure guys in the early 2000's though we'd already be there or close. But nope... I have very little faith we'll actually see pay rates that high in my time here which means in reality my pension will be even less.

IF we manage to get raises, a BIG IF... and possibly a better percent benefit with CWIPP and some indexing we could see an improvement and I'd be happy to see it. But again.. given the last 25 years track record of this pilot group my expectations are fairly low.

WB FOs in the USA make a lot more though.. so bidding bottom bitch on the 330 at Delta for the most of your career would be $220 top rate now or around $273 USD/hr in 12 years.. So 16% of that into a DC fund compounded at 5-7% per year over the lifetime of the investment is a lot of money. Could also bid NB CA and ride that list up to the top, and stay away from the WBs... that would be mid 300's USD/hr top rate in 12 years at %2. Or $274/hr now. That said my bid the bottom comment was in relation to a best 3 or 5 DB pension.

We can theorize all day long, but at the end of the day CWIPP in it's current form is MEH and if we want to have a decent pension when we retire it needs some work. Raises help, but so does getting everyone back on staff so their YOS start accruing again, as does increasing the CWIPP benefit.

[a220hereicome]

“ if we want to have a decent pension when we retire it needs some work. Raises help, but so does getting everyone back on staff so their YOS start accruing again, as does increasing the CWIPP benefit.”

Totally agree.

[Fanblade]

No fight in this game from my end but thought I’d give this a bump from Redbus. Does the ‘95 contract in the attachment answer the questions going back and forth here? How does this compare to the current contract?

T.

The problem is getting a proper understanding of the losses. Since 2003 we have had cuts layered on top of cuts making it difficult.

Kind of like opening a credit card statement and initially looking at it in disbelief. Initially it’s denial. No way, I didn’t do that!

Then you go through it line by line and realize……. Crap, I did do that.

1995 is but one line in that credit card statement. We need all the lines presented at once to actually have a proper understanding of the bill.

And make no mistake. This bill is expensive.

Ya I get that, but from what I can tell (unless I’m wrong) every ACPA contract is in this attachment going back to 1995. Unless I’m missing something, isn’t there enough information within this link to give you guys all the answers you need?

I’m curious to see if Alti can run another breakdown showing losses with these contracts as proof points. So far this thread has turned into some interesting reading.

T.

Unfortunately those contracts don’t contain pay tables. They simply show the formula pay inputs.

Recreating the pay tables would be a huge undertaking. I don’t think it is realistic to expect someone to put in hundreds of hours to recreate tables ACPA already has.

But, If that is what Alti is up to, we won’t hear from him for a long time.

[acpaleaks]

The problem is getting a proper understanding of the losses. Since 2003 we have had cuts layered on top of cuts making it difficult.

Kind of like opening a credit card statement and initially looking at it in disbelief. Initially it’s denial. No way, I didn’t do that!

Then you go through it line by line and realize……. Crap, I did do that.

1995 is but one line in that credit card statement. We need all the lines presented at once to actually have a proper understanding of the bill.

And make no mistake. This bill is expensive.

Ya I get that, but from what I can tell (unless I’m wrong) every ACPA contract is in this attachment going back to 1995. Unless I’m missing something, isn’t there enough information within this link to give you guys all the answers you need?

I’m curious to see if Alti can run another breakdown showing losses with these contracts as proof points. So far this thread has turned into some interesting reading.

T.

Unfortunately those contracts don’t contain pay tables. They simply show the formula pay inputs.

That's a feature not a bug... By ACPA.

There's a reason we don't have posted pay tables and that's largely because it would create an easy way to compare to other airlines.

Formula pay is a dinosaur and needs to go. We're flying lighter and faster planes now... Why should someone who's flying a 787 on a route that used to be a 777 be paid less? Same goes for Rouge... Why less for the same plane? Why is the A220 not even part of said formula? Or it is now with the greivance? I dunno...

Either way.. I'd be happy if we just moved to set pay tables, add 3-5% "night premium" and wrap NAV into said new tables.

[notwhoyouthinkIam]

Ya I get that, but from what I can tell (unless I’m wrong) every ACPA contract is in this attachment going back to 1995. Unless I’m missing something, isn’t there enough information within this link to give you guys all the answers you need?

I’m curious to see if Alti can run another breakdown showing losses with these contracts as proof points. So far this thread has turned into some interesting reading.

T.

Unfortunately those contracts don’t contain pay tables. They simply show the formula pay inputs.

That's a feature not a bug... By ACPA.

There's a reason we don't have posted pay tables and that's largely because it would create an easy way to compare to other airlines.

Formula pay is a dinosaur and needs to go. We're flying lighter and faster planes now... Why should someone who's flying a 787 on a route that used to be a 777 be paid less? Same goes for Rouge... Why less for the same plane? Why is the A220 not even part of said formula? Or it is now with the greivance? I dunno...

Either way.. I'd be happy if we just moved to set pay tables, add 3-5% "night premium" and wrap NAV into said new tables.

What does weight, speed, or distance have to do with anything?

Pay by the time worked like a normal employer. To tell me that a 787 captain deserves more money than a Q400 captain solely based off of the weight is stupid. A 787 captain preps the airplane for an hour, takes off, and then usually sits and monitors for hours on end. A Q400 captain will do a lot more work than a 787 captain in that same period of time.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that a 787 should pay more than a Q, but it should be more based on experience and requirements.

[altiplano]

I feel like everyone should read "Flying the Line" anyway...

Unfortunately those contracts don’t contain pay tables. They simply show the formula pay inputs.

Recreating the pay tables would be a huge undertaking. I don’t think it is realistic to expect someone to put in hundreds of hours to recreate tables ACPA already has.

But, If that is what Alti is up to, we won’t hear from him for a long time.

It would be a big task to do the pay tables. I may look at piecing some of it together, but I'd rather just find a table and summer is too short in this country as is. It would be easier if the inner circle members on here that say they have them would just post them... They're the ones saying that we never made much money before.

But the fact is that we were always in the mix with the US Legacy Airlines, it's largely in the last decade that we have completely imploded and failed to recover or keep pace. They have though, they are in fact very close to inflation adjusted pay across the past 20 years, from the prebankruptcy period. Meanwhile, during what was the best time ever in the history of our company, we fell far back by accepting concessionary deals again and again.

I wonder if this group at all believes that securing a contract gain is a reasonable expectation? That including snap backs when we are prepared to offer flexibility is completely fair? That we are worth the same as our colleagues at other network airlines, flying the same aircraft, to the same destinations, with the same passengers, for comparable fares?

That's a feature not a bug... By ACPA.

There's a reason we don't have posted pay tables and that's largely because it would create an easy way to compare to other airlines.

Formula pay is a dinosaur and needs to go. We're flying lighter and faster planes now... Why should someone who's flying a 787 on a route that used to be a 777 be paid less? Same goes for Rouge... Why less for the same plane? Why is the A220 not even part of said formula? Or it is now with the greivance? I dunno...

Either way.. I'd be happy if we just moved to set pay tables, add 3-5% "night premium" and wrap NAV into said new tables.

Agree on the reason historic pay tables are purged.

I disagree on formula pay. Formula pay perhaps needs to be revised to account for things like lighter empty weight aircraft with larger capacities like the 787, but it's an important foundation for our pay. We are paid based on the productivity potential of the job we do. The 777 guy can carry more passengers, more cargo so has a higher weight component of his pay, the 787 guy flies faster so gets a higher speed component. Formula pay is the foundation that ensures we are paid fairly for our rate of productivity.

Formula pay lays it out really simple and every time we @#$! with it we get bit.

Many of the problems we have, and that you mention are examples of and created by us getting off formula pay:
Rouge? C-scale Cargo? That's absolutely gotta go. Fixed rate 4 year pay that isn't formula? Gotta go. Pay group (now RP pay group). Gotta go.

C-series took a hit because ACPA didn't stand their ground firmly enough. The Company wanted to give it EMJ pay, because it's the EMJ replacement. ACPA counted it a win that they got slightly better.

And to show you the bullshit the company will pull, how ridiculous it is... when we got the EMJ The Company didn't want to give it DC-9 rates even though it was the DC-9 replacement. So we ended up with low rate carved out EMJ pay, the FO pay was so bad, they improved it by grouping the EMJ FOs with higher paid RPs and averaging out the pay (Pay Group). Then later we took pay cuts to the rest of the FO positions to improve EMJ CA&FO, the EMJ FFOs came out of the Pay Group, but the RPs didn't get the old formula rate back, still an averaged rate similar to the PG rate. Then they cut the now higher paid EMJ positions out all together. And we are still left with the pay cuts to all the rest of the positions that were meant to raise that position.

What does weight, speed, or distance have to do with anything?

Pay by the time worked like a normal employer. To tell me that a 787 captain deserves more money than a Q400 captain solely based off of the weight is stupid. A 787 captain preps the airplane for an hour, takes off, and then usually sits and monitors for hours on end. A Q400 captain will do a lot more work than a 787 captain in that same period of time.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that a 787 should pay more than a Q, but it should be more based on experience and requirements.

Who's more productive? Who's generating more earnings?

The 20,000 hour beaver pilot or the 20,000 hour 777 Captain?

You're inexperience shows if you think managing a full crew and flying 400 people and a million pounds 15 hours over the pole and across Siberia to HKG is the same or easier than doing a Sudbury turn in a turbo-prop... let alone when SHTF.

You aren't paying exclusively for the time, you are paying for the decades of experience it took to earn that seat.

[notwhoyouthinkIam]

What does weight, speed, or distance have to do with anything?

Pay by the time worked like a normal employer. To tell me that a 787 captain deserves more money than a Q400 captain solely based off of the weight is stupid. A 787 captain preps the airplane for an hour, takes off, and then usually sits and monitors for hours on end. A Q400 captain will do a lot more work than a 787 captain in that same period of time.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that a 787 should pay more than a Q, but it should be more based on experience and requirements.

Who's more productive? Who's generating more earnings?

The 20,000 hour beaver pilot or the 20,000 hour 777 Captain?

You're inexperience shows if you think managing a full crew and flying 400 people and a million pounds 15 hours over the pole and across Siberia to HKG is the same or easier than doing a Sudbury turn in a turbo-prop... let alone when SHTF.

You aren't paying exclusively for the time, you are paying for the decades of experience it took to earn that seat.

I think you may want to re-read what I had written... it doesn't seem that our opinions are too far off.

For the record, the captain does not manage the flight attendants. Sure, the captain has the final authority, but they are not the one that makes sure the service runs smoothly.

At the end of the day, when shit hits the fan, it doesn't matter if you're in a Q400, A320, or 777. You are trained to deal with the situation using the tools you have at your disposal. With the SHTF sentiment, shouldn't a pilot on an 727 or MD80 that has a lower reliability rate get paid more because they're more likely to experience a dangerous and stressful situation?

To reiterate my original point, I agree that a 787 captain should be paid more than a Q400 captain, but not because it weighs more or is covering more distance.

[altiplano]

What does weight, speed, or distance have to do with anything?

Pay by the time worked like a normal employer. To tell me that a 787 captain deserves more money than a Q400 captain solely based off of the weight is stupid. A 787 captain preps the airplane for an hour, takes off, and then usually sits and monitors for hours on end. A Q400 captain will do a lot more work than a 787 captain in that same period of time.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that a 787 should pay more than a Q, but it should be more based on experience and requirements.

Who's more productive? Who's generating more earnings?

The 20,000 hour beaver pilot or the 20,000 hour 777 Captain?

You're inexperience shows if you think managing a full crew and flying 400 people and a million pounds 15 hours over the pole and across Siberia to HKG is the same or easier than doing a Sudbury turn in a turbo-prop... let alone when SHTF.

You aren't paying exclusively for the time, you are paying for the decades of experience it took to earn that seat.

I think you may want to re-read what I had written... it doesn't seem that our opinions are too far off.

For the record, the captain does not manage the flight attendants. Sure, the captain has the final authority, but they are not the one that makes sure the service runs smoothly.

At the end of the day, when shit hits the fan, it doesn't matter if you're in a Q400, A320, or 777. You are trained to deal with the situation using the tools you have at your disposal. With the SHTF sentiment, shouldn't a pilot on an 727 or MD80 that has a lower reliability rate get paid more because they're more likely to experience a dangerous and stressful situation?

To reiterate my original point, I agree that a 787 captain should be paid more than a Q400 captain, but not because it weighs more or is covering more distance.

Yes, for the record, the Captain manages and is responsible the whole aircraft and everyone on it, including the whole crew, including the FAs.

Why don't you enlighten me then, why do you think a 787 Captain should make more than a Q400 Captain?

[notwhoyouthinkIam]

Yes, for the record, the Captain manages and is responsible the whole aircraft and everyone on it, including the whole crew, including the FAs.

Why don't you enlighten me then, why do you think a 787 Captain should make more than a Q400 Captain?

I deleted my previous reply to this message because I accused you of not comprehending what I was saying when in reality, I did not properly read what you had said.

The reason why I think a 787 captain should (usually) make more than a Q captain is that a 787 captain should have far more experience than a Q captain. Also, flying to different countries has different demands and requirements than flying a timezone over and flying back.

Mostly though, it's because it gives me something to look forward to in my career.

[acpaleaks]

I feel like everyone should read "Flying the Line" anyway...

Unfortunately those contracts don’t contain pay tables. They simply show the formula pay inputs.

Recreating the pay tables would be a huge undertaking. I don’t think it is realistic to expect someone to put in hundreds of hours to recreate tables ACPA already has.

But, If that is what Alti is up to, we won’t hear from him for a long time.

It would be a big task to do the pay tables. I may look at piecing some of it together, but I'd rather just find a table and summer is too short in this country as is. It would be easier if the inner circle members on here that say they have them would just post them... They're the ones saying that we never made much money before.

But the fact is that we were always in the mix with the US Legacy Airlines, it's largely in the last decade that we have completely imploded and failed to recover or keep pace. They have though, they are in fact very close to inflation adjusted pay across the past 20 years, from the prebankruptcy period. Meanwhile, during what was the best time ever in the history of our company, we fell far back by accepting concessionary deals again and again.

I wonder if this group at all believes that securing a contract gain is a reasonable expectation? That including snap backs when we are prepared to offer flexibility is completely fair? That we are worth the same as our colleagues at other network airlines, flying the same aircraft, to the same destinations, with the same passengers, for comparable fares?

That's a feature not a bug... By ACPA.

There's a reason we don't have posted pay tables and that's largely because it would create an easy way to compare to other airlines.

Formula pay is a dinosaur and needs to go. We're flying lighter and faster planes now... Why should someone who's flying a 787 on a route that used to be a 777 be paid less? Same goes for Rouge... Why less for the same plane? Why is the A220 not even part of said formula? Or it is now with the greivance? I dunno...

Either way.. I'd be happy if we just moved to set pay tables, add 3-5% "night premium" and wrap NAV into said new tables.

Agree on the reason historic pay tables are purged.

I disagree on formula pay. Formula pay perhaps needs to be revised to account for things like lighter empty weight aircraft with larger capacities like the 787, but it's an important foundation for our pay. We are paid based on the productivity potential of the job we do. The 777 guy can carry more passengers, more cargo so has a higher weight component of his pay, the 787 guy flies faster so gets a higher speed component. Formula pay is the foundation that ensures we are paid fairly for our rate of productivity.

Formula pay lays it out really simple and every time we @#$! with it we get bit.

Many of the problems we have, and that you mention are examples of and created by us getting off formula pay:
Rouge? C-scale Cargo? That's absolutely gotta go. Fixed rate 4 year pay that isn't formula? Gotta go. Pay group (now RP pay group). Gotta go.

C-series took a hit because ACPA didn't stand their ground firmly enough. The Company wanted to give it EMJ pay, because it's the EMJ replacement. ACPA counted it a win that they got slightly better.

And to show you the bullshit the company will pull, how ridiculous it is... when we got the EMJ The Company didn't want to give it DC-9 rates even though it was the DC-9 replacement. So we ended up with low rate carved out EMJ pay, the FO pay was so bad, they improved it by grouping the EMJ FOs with higher paid RPs and averaging out the pay (Pay Group). Then later we took pay cuts to the rest of the FO positions to improve EMJ CA&FO, the EMJ FFOs came out of the Pay Group, but the RPs didn't get the old formula rate back, still an averaged rate similar to the PG rate. Then they cut the now higher paid EMJ positions out all together. And we are still left with the pay cuts to all the rest of the positions that were meant to raise that position.

What does weight, speed, or distance have to do with anything?

Pay by the time worked like a normal employer. To tell me that a 787 captain deserves more money than a Q400 captain solely based off of the weight is stupid. A 787 captain preps the airplane for an hour, takes off, and then usually sits and monitors for hours on end. A Q400 captain will do a lot more work than a 787 captain in that same period of time.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that a 787 should pay more than a Q, but it should be more based on experience and requirements.

Who's more productive? Who's generating more earnings?

The 20,000 hour beaver pilot or the 20,000 hour 777 Captain?

You're inexperience shows if you think managing a full crew and flying 400 people and a million pounds 15 hours over the pole and across Siberia to HKG is the same or easier than doing a Sudbury turn in a turbo-prop... let alone when SHTF.

You aren't paying exclusively for the time, you are paying for the decades of experience it took to earn that seat.

Ok fair enough. I guess a middle ground I could be ok with is revamping formula pay (and fixing the FO % or CA pay) and ALSO have acpa post official paytables based on that formula once a year. It's not a lot of work and honestly the Crewsware guy is already 95% of the way there (there's a few glaring mistakes in the lower FO yearly pay).

Formula pay works in theory but you need an association willing to force the company to comply or take them to arbitration. If a plane is being replaced like for like with something lighter, faster and more fuel efficient.. I can't see how an arbitrator wouldn't rule in our favour. And IMO all WB planes should be paid the same. 777 rates.

I bolded a section there and in reply to that I totally agree. I worry that if we do ever get rid of LOU74 and group everything back into ML we'll do it for free and all the negotiating capital spent on Rouge that could have been used towards ML rates will be lost.

To quote EH "the pilots get X amount of money and what we do with it and spread it around is up to us"... Well first I disagree with that statement but going by that logic, all the money from LOU74 should be calculated and we should get equivalent gains in the ML Collective Agreement. But my expectations are low.

[link821]

So now that we've ironed out that there are some significant issues with pay and representation at the NHL of airlines, is there anything actively being done to improve any of the above? An honest question, its currently my 2nd day in a row eating instant noodles. Being able to own a home and retire one day would be neat...

[acpaleaks]

So now that we've ironed out that there are some significant issues with pay and representation at the NHL of airlines, is there anything actively being done to improve any of the above? An honest question, its currently my 2nd day in a row eating instant noodles. Being able to own a home and retire one day would be neat...

No. Not with the current group in charge and the weak negotiations committee that drinks the company fear kool aid.

[TheStig]

Ok fair enough. I guess a middle ground I could be ok with is revamping formula pay (and fixing the FO % or CA pay) and ALSO have acpa post official paytables based on that formula once a year. It's not a lot of work and honestly the Crewsware guy is already 95% of the way there (there's a few glaring mistakes in the lower FO yearly pay).

Formula pay works in theory but you need an association willing to force the company to comply or take them to arbitration. If a plane is being replaced like for like with something lighter, faster and more fuel efficient.. I can't see how an arbitrator wouldn't rule in our favour. And IMO all WB planes should be paid the same. 777 rates.

Prior to TA1 ACPA polled the membership, one of the most agreed upon issues was that Captains should earn more than FO's. As has been mentioned on this thread, the EMJ pay tables didn't resemble any formula whatsoever, they were created in CCAA. When the company/CPC rolled ACPA with 'Final Offer Selection' two of the changes they'd made to 'TA1', as it's called, were to CUT the formula rates for the FO positions across the board, so, as the pilots wished, Captains were paid more than FO's.

Another big change was to the scope language that permitted the E175's to be scoped out. So 25% of those big EMJ Captains raises disappeared before the ink dried on the contract. Pilot's in FO positions were given Grandfather pay tables for the old formula +raises, however, the airline wiped out many pilots on those paytables by transferring positions on/off of bases. It's checkers and chess.

[Fanblade]

Ok fair enough. I guess a middle ground I could be ok with is revamping formula pay (and fixing the FO % or CA pay) and ALSO have acpa post official paytables based on that formula once a year. It's not a lot of work and honestly the Crewsware guy is already 95% of the way there (there's a few glaring mistakes in the lower FO yearly pay).

Formula pay works in theory but you need an association willing to force the company to comply or take them to arbitration. If a plane is being replaced like for like with something lighter, faster and more fuel efficient.. I can't see how an arbitrator wouldn't rule in our favour. And IMO all WB planes should be paid the same. 777 rates.

Prior to TA1 ACPA polled the membership, one of the most agreed upon issues was that Captains should earn more than FO's. As has been mentioned on this thread, the EMJ pay tables didn't resemble any formula whatsoever, they were created in CCAA. When the company/CPC rolled ACPA with 'Final Offer Selection' two of the changes they'd made to 'TA1', as it's called, were to CUT the formula rates for the FO positions across the board, so, as the pilots wished, Captains were paid more than FO's.

Another big change was to the scope language that permitted the E175's to be scoped out. So 25% of those big EMJ Captains raises disappeared before the ink dried on the contract. Pilot's in FO positions were given Grandfather pay tables for the old formula +raises, however, the airline wiped out many pilots on those paytables by transferring positions on/off of bases. It's checkers and chess.

Are sure about what I put in bold? The changes to formula pay were made by those negotiating TA1 from my memory. It was during road shows, by the ACPA negotiating team, that we were told polling showed pilots wanted Captains to make more than FO’s. That was their justification for the across the board FO and RP cuts.

Quite the farce though. Who in their right mind would think the pilots wanted to give pay cuts to FO’s so that Captains make more.

And worse. Nothing has been done to address the problem. Nor have I heard of any intent to even do so.

Either way during FOS I remember the company pulling the pay groupings but not actually touching the hourly pay that ACPA had negotiated in TA1. The pay groupings had been used to mask the severity of the cuts.