American Eagle aka Envoy to try one more time to negotiate.

WeAAsles

Veteran
Oct 20, 2007
23,195
5,343
PMUS already has Piedmont Commuter which is turning into a ground handling company.
 
I told an AE pilot many months back that my guess was the company was going to force him over to the mainline even if they had to twist his arm to do it. He wasn't happy with my comment but he didn't argue with me. He has weekends now and doesn't want to lose that even for the bump in pay.

I'm pretty sure that this time both sides will come to an agreement.
 
will fix for food said:
Talks broke down again. PDT has a TA though. Now it's their turn to get a chance to vote in pay cuts.
I saw that. It looks like Piedmont sold out their AE Brothers? If they vote it in AE is doomed.
 
WeAAsles said:
I saw that. It looks like Piedmont sold out their AE Brothers? If they vote it in AE is doomed.
PSA (the other US wholly-owned regional) sold out last September:
 
http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2013/09/psa-pilots-ok-contract-that-allows-lower-pay-rates-for-new-pilots.html/
 
Here are two articles about the latest breakdown in talks with Envoy pilots:

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2014/08/talks-between-american-airlines-envoy-pilots-end-without-deal.html/
 
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/airline-industry/20140822-talks-between-envoy-air-pilots-american-airlines-end-without-a-deal.ece
 
After the PSA pilots approved their concessionary contract last September,  Republic's pilots voted down a TA that contained raises.   
 
My guess is that Parker and Kirby end up paying more to fly those E175s than it would have cost them had they just assigned them to Envoy instead of demanding concessions last year.   Idiots.  
 
I'm sure some ignorant dumbass Parker/Kirby apologists will be along shortly to defend their heroes.   
 
FWAAA said:
PSA (the other US wholly-owned regional) sold out last September:
 
http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2013/09/psa-pilots-ok-contract-that-allows-lower-pay-rates-for-new-pilots.html/
 
Here are two articles about the latest breakdown in talks with Envoy pilots:

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2014/08/talks-between-american-airlines-envoy-pilots-end-without-deal.html/
 
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/airline-industry/20140822-talks-between-envoy-air-pilots-american-airlines-end-without-a-deal.ece
 
After the PSA pilots approved their concessionary contract last September,  Republic's pilots voted down a TA that contained raises.   
 
My guess is that Parker and Kirby end up paying more to fly those E175s than it would have cost them had they just assigned them to Envoy instead of demanding concessions last year.   Idiots.  
 
I'm sure some ignorant dumbass Parker/Kirby apologists will be along shortly to defend their heroes.   
Do you find it at all suspicious that on the same day Envoy (AE) Pilots turned down the offer from the company that Peidmont negotiators voted unanimously to pass a TA on to their members?
 
WeAAsles said:
Do you find it at all suspicious that on the same day Envoy (AE) Pilots turned down the offer from the company that Peidmont negotiators voted unanimously to pass a TA on to their members?
No not at all.  Piedmont's aircraft are old with no talk of any replacements to come.  Thinking that they just gave a little life to Piedmont Airlines as most of their airframes at just bout at the end of their cycle lives.
 
Hope777 said:
No not at all.  Piedmont's aircraft are old with no talk of any replacements to come.  Thinking that they just gave a little life to Piedmont Airlines as most of their airframes at just bout at the end of their cycle lives.
Ah. Ok.
 
Yep. Envoy pilots clearly thought they had bargaining power because of the looming shortage.

Piedmont, OTOH, was seeing the end of their usefulness, and looking out for self-preservation.

Each ends to bring out a different response at the ballot box...
 
eolesen said:
Yep. Envoy pilots clearly thought they had bargaining power because of the looming shortage.

Piedmont, OTOH, was seeing the end of their usefulness, and looking out for self-preservation.

Each ends to bring out a different response at the ballot box...
This kind of reminds me of the Hostess situation. The IBT drivers voted in their concessions and were putting a lot of pressure on the Bakers to do the same. The bakers said no and they essentially put themselves and the IBT out of work. My cousin was a baker in Maine for Hostess. Essentially the IBT guys were still going to be making over 40k per year and the company wanted the bakers to take a cut that would have brought a FTer down to just 25k per year. $12.00 per hour.

I saw a lot of message board comments by the IBT that were angry and called the bakers greedy and blame them for shutting down the company. Yea, ok sure.
 
I believe that Unions should do everything they can to stick together and support each other but I also don't believe that one should be the sacrificial lamb to support another if that's the case here.

A big Thank You from the survivors is not going to pay someone's bills.
 
I think there's a huge difference between Envoy and Piedmont and the situation at Hostess.
Regardless if they work for Envoy or Piedmont, they're pilots, with the same basic training, and they fly airplanes. Same job, same skill requirements, just different contracts and up until now different aircraft types.

The dispute between the IBT and the bakers is entirely different -- they were within the same supply chain, but doing different functions and arguably different levels of skill, risk and training were required.

What was the level of skill and risk to human life required to be a baker, compared to being a CDL holding driver and the face of the company with its retail customers?

Seems that almost all of the production process had been automated, and the bakers were doing little more than monitoring the machines and rolling carts of finished product. One of the criticisms I've heard is that the bakers' union was insisting that staffing levels stayed at the levels which pre-dated the automation.
 
eolesen said:
I think there's a huge difference between Envoy and Piedmont and the situation at Hostess.
Regardless if they work for Envoy or Piedmont, they're pilots, with the same basic training, and they fly airplanes. Same job, same skill requirements, just different contracts and up until now different aircraft types.

The dispute between the IBT and the bakers is entirely different -- they were within the same supply chain, but doing different functions and arguably different levels of skill, risk and training were required.

What was the level of skill and risk to human life required to be a baker, compared to being a CDL holding driver and the face of the company with its retail customers?

Seems that almost all of the production process had been automated, and the bakers were doing little more than monitoring the machines and rolling carts of finished product. One of the criticisms I've heard is that the bakers' union was insisting that staffing levels stayed at the levels which pre-dated the automation.
You're correct in your last comment E. But at the same time just because these bakers were not drivers with CDL's doesn't mean they should be forced into poverty wages to satisfy others and keep the company going.

Yes Twinkees are certainly a lot different then flying an airplane but just to segue a little. My cousin told me that he used to make over 40k himself and this was to be either the second or third concession he was being asked to take. He and his coworkers had the right to say no and face the ramifications for their decision.

Not quite the same mirror image to our own BK but a very interesting window into the possibilities had we all said no as well.
 

Latest posts