link821 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 1:05 pm
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...
Furloughed? Hope you are back soon.
Is there being anything done? Yup. Lots. ACPA has been turfing volunteers while you have been gone. Anyone with a dissenting opinion is being shown the door.
If you say something that casts ACPA in a poor light? Your treated like the problem.
The good news is that the number who have had enough is slowly increasing.
acpaleaks wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 12:31 pm
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.
Well of course CAs should make more than FOs ....
Mind you that doesn't mean the answer is dropping FO % to the low 50s. We need minimum 60% of CA wages across the board at all years of service.
BTD wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 6:06 pm
Legal is a joke. But the formula rates are posted on the ACPA website before each April.
Well they sure don't do a very good job advertising that. ACPAs biggest ongoing issue is communication with members. And the dumb flight deck app isn't going to change that. Zero chance I'm putting an app that tracks me on my personal device. Funny how furloughs are not important enough to have on the regular mailing list but ACPA will send emails to them telling them to download an app.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by acpaleaks on Wed Aug 04, 2021 6:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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.
I put together some numbers, from 1995 through 2003, plus the post CCAA contract which had no annual pay progression.
All figures are for a year 12 A320 Captain. I included OVS and NAV pay in the spreadsheet, but they are not included in the DAY NIGHT and 1/2DN values. The CCAA contract was particularly nasty to the 320 pilots, as the already reduced rates were further reduced by 5% only on the 320!!
C5FB974F-D9D4-4796-B24E-007B63CD4C1C.jpeg (644.28 KiB) Viewed 2589 times
No inflation adjustment is included, everything is as per the formula in the contract.
3FC6FA43-1AE3-4796-92DF-9749E0792496.jpeg (581.89 KiB) Viewed 2589 times
That sure reads as "we have a pay schedule, but we're going to pay less on the new equipment because people want to fly it and we can."
And it happened again with the EMB and the A220.
Similar to a lot of our provisions in the contract that deal with furlough, down bids etc. The big fear monger from ACPA last year was that the company would just stop paying people out of seniority.
Our union legit has gums for teeth. ZERO back bone and it happens over and over.
That sure reads as "we have a pay schedule, but we're going to pay less on the new equipment because people want to fly it and we can."
The sad part is the 320 wasn’t even “new equipment” in 2003, some fins had been on the property for 14 years already! The CCAA contract was the first time the weight of the 321 was factored into the formula, but proportionally (as the 787 is now), rather than the current formula which is based on the heaviest variant operated. All these little things add up!
NotDirty! wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:16 pm
I found the FOS contract, so I added some more numbers into my spreadsheet:
C5E8B4DD-CDCA-42C7-A89C-E78A2EF56AD9.jpeg
Or for the more graphically inclined:
BEC91E1B-5441-43A7-8FC6-B2433981F710.jpeg
In other words, by 2015 we still hadn’t got back to the 2003 pay, without factoring inflation!
So in reality a 30-40% pay cut. And that's just "basket of goods" COLA. When you factor housing prices over that time our buying power has decreased even more which is why I have no time for disconnected boomer captains telling me how "lucky" I am... I guess they forget they bought their house for 200k and it's now worth 2 million. While we still earn the same dollar for dollar than 18 years ago.
There are pros and cons to paying all pilots at a company the same (captains are payed more of course) regardless of which aircraft they fly (status pay).
It sounds fair paying everyone the same (everyone is doing a similar job), but I don't think status pay is a good idea because of this:
If pilots are payed more for flying larger aircraft, most senior pilots gravitate to the larger aircraft.
This give the opportunity for the more junior pilot to to trade pay for schedule. He can stay on the smaller aircraft and get payed less but have a better schedule.
What is everybody's take on the bid being delayed. Do you see this as a potentially busier future sched leading to more recalls or extra time to extract concessions? I think everybody is looking forward to having some sort of outlook to plan their lives around.
What is everybody's take on the bid being delayed. Do you see this as a potentially busier future sched leading to more recalls or extra time to extract concessions? I think everybody is looking forward to having some sort of outlook to plan their lives around.
I’m pessimistic. I think we’re just behind in training and have the right number of pilots if everybody were fully trained in their position. Apparently there’s been a pause to the weekly training report for the 737 because of the anticipation of a bid. So what do I know.
What is everybody's take on the bid being delayed. Do you see this as a potentially busier future sched leading to more recalls or extra time to extract concessions? I think everybody is looking forward to having some sort of outlook to plan their lives around.
I’m pessimistic. I think we’re just behind in training and have the right number of pilots if everybody were fully trained in their position. Apparently there’s been a pause to the weekly training report for the 737 because of the anticipation of a bid. So what do I know.
Edit for quote
I'd say the revision is for less flying than previously forecasted next summer. Hopefully we still see some recalls, just maybe not as many as first planned. The return to normal is going to be hampered by international travel restrictions and testing requirements.
What is everybody's take on the bid being delayed. Do you see this as a potentially busier future sched leading to more recalls or extra time to extract concessions? I think everybody is looking forward to having some sort of outlook to plan their lives around.
I’m pessimistic. I think we’re just behind in training and have the right number of pilots if everybody were fully trained in their position. Apparently there’s been a pause to the weekly training report for the 737 because of the anticipation of a bid. So what do I know.
Edit for quote
I don't think we're anywhere close to fully staffed for a 1 year outlook. Current flights, yes. Not the spring, not the summer of 2022. Not even close.
What is everybody's take on the bid being delayed. Do you see this as a potentially busier future sched leading to more recalls or extra time to extract concessions? I think everybody is looking forward to having some sort of outlook to plan their lives around.
I’m pessimistic. I think we’re just behind in training and have the right number of pilots if everybody were fully trained in their position. Apparently there’s been a pause to the weekly training report for the 737 because of the anticipation of a bid. So what do I know.
Edit for quote
I'd say the revision is for less flying than previously forecasted next summer. Hopefully we still see some recalls, just maybe not as many as first planned. The return to normal is going to be hampered by international travel restrictions and testing requirements.
My sneaking suspicion, there's no revision. AC just wants to squeeze ACPA last minute for concessions.
I’m pessimistic. I think we’re just behind in training and have the right number of pilots if everybody were fully trained in their position. Apparently there’s been a pause to the weekly training report for the 737 because of the anticipation of a bid. So what do I know.
Edit for quote
I'd say the revision is for less flying than previously forecasted next summer. Hopefully we still see some recalls, just maybe not as many as first planned. The return to normal is going to be hampered by international travel restrictions and testing requirements.
My sneaking suspicion, there's no revision. AC just wants to squeeze ACPA last minute for concessions.
Bids being delayed is the new normal, they’ve had over 6 months to figure out the new bid. With the scope let they don’t really need much mainline flying and can let Jazz recall and do most of the block hours.
Rapid increases (13%) in 1990, only to be followed by cuts (7% total) in 1993/94. Back up 11% in 1995, 2%/yr in ‘96-97… then 4%, 5%, 5%, 4% in ‘98-2001. 2.5% increases in 2002&2003, then down almost 21% after CCAA.
553A2894-6E98-4AF2-9A7C-D2F2B70B9A6C.jpeg (1.3 MiB) Viewed 2530 times
The graph says a lot…
6B024A3E-6260-4697-9CC3-7BBA888E1150.jpeg (169.78 KiB) Viewed 2530 times
....
