How low in wages would a pilot go?

[Bob Owens]

pitguy;
I dont think Chip is a commercial pilot. There are some lines that even MGMT pilots dont usually cross- such as printing out pay rates.I beleive that MGMT pilots can go back into the Union with full sen if they want. We really dont want to battle with the pilots anyway, most of them are decent guys/gals who realize that they are just workers like the rest of us.
As far as the TUG Slug function going away for Mtc. I think its a loser for the company. It looks good on paper but I doubt that the savings ever materialize. The same goes for De-icing.When you consider the difference in pay against the use of glycol it costs far more to have lower paid employees do the job. Thats one of the problems with the idea of the one MBA fits all mantra. Sometimes the theories dont work in real life.

 

[pitguy]

Bob,

I feel you are correct. Ground damage is another negative that is very expensive for the company.

 

[autofixer]

And the band played, while the ship is sinking....I hope you can swim!

 

[sabre]

The ship is the Titanic. The ships captain ran this ship on an iceberg. It might sink but whether it does or not won't be conditioned on the employees.

At any rate, Chip's printing of the pay scales is appreciated and not profane. Chip is sharing facts.

 

[chipmunn]

[BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Pitguy:[/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]US Airways is a major airline has defined by the definition provided by the DOT. US Airways and its management have every intention to grow mainline ASMs and long-haul flying, when the economic environment permits.[/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Your attack on pilot wages is unwarranted. US Airways operates a fleet of 279 mainline type aircraft and is near the bottom of mainline wages. [/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]The pilot group represents 10 percent of the workforce, pre-restructuring agreements was 30 percent of the labor expense, but gave 60 percent of the labor savings.[/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]How much is enough for the pilots to give, 70 percent, 80 percent, 90 percent, or even 100 percent, so you and others do not have to give a concession. Some pilot gave over $100,000 per year in income and in my case my cut so far, which could be more, is $75,000 per year.[/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]What's enough, so you and others do not have to take cuts? US Airways pilots are not overpaid at their current structure and in my opinion to suggest otherwise is wrong. This is not socialism and people are paid according to market rates and what an employer can afford to pay.[/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Chip[/FONT]

 

[autofixer]

Gez pitguy, transmission rebuilders make $30 per hour or a little over $62,000 per year. He/she is a highly skilled professional...but not licensed or accountable to anyone, but the boss. Where do your numbers come from, or did you just pull them out of thin air ? INFO:If anyone is looking for a great new career field, transmission rebuilding is it!

 

[pitguy]

Chip,
I feel terrible for your pay cuts. As I know you do for mine. I just feel as a company we still have allot of ground to cover and by looking at the pay scale information you provided I am of the opinion that we should look at reducing them further. I believe $65,000 to a top out of $100,000 is fair. Maybe when things turn around more money can come along for the pay, but for now I think it is appropriate.

Don't think of it as a pay cut, but as an investment in your future.

 

[767jetz]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/23/2002 9:08:32 PM sabre wrote:



At any rate, Chip's printing of the pay scales is appreciated and not profane. Chip is sharing facts.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Unfortunately, Chips facts are inaccurate, incomplete, or just plain WRONG. See my previous posts. Unfortunately he ignores my requests to correct himself.

 

[767jetz]

pitguy & others,

Try to remember that Chip also has other motives for not giving up any more pay. You see, he seems to believe that eventually there will be a unique corporate transaction linking UA and US. The lower his pay goes, the less leverage he has negotiating his relative seniority in any sort of integration within ALPA's merger policy. (ie: career expectations.) If the US guys take a cut putting them closer to Express pay rates, the chances will be greater of him losing his fourth stripe and having to throw the gear lever in the right seat of a UA 737 for a younger 10 year UA captain!

 

[chipmunn]

[P][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]767jetz:[/FONT][/P]
[P][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]767jetz said: Try to remember that Chip also has other motives for not giving up any more pay. You see, he seems to believe that eventually there will be a unique corporate transaction linking UA and US. The lower his pay goes, the less leverage he has negotiating his relative seniority in any sort of integration within ALPA's merger policy. [/FONT][/P]
[P][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Chip comments: With all due respect, in the US Airways and US Airways Shuttle integration the Board of Arbitration ruled that W-2 is not a valid argument when combining seniority lists. This is a legal precedent that would likely be used in any future case involving ALPA Merger Policy. For the record, I have routinely said W-2 is not the problem at major airlines when compared to its low cost counterparts. As discussed in the Time Magazine article I posted earlier today, the big issue is productivity. [/FONT][/P]
[P][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Chip [/FONT][/P]
[P][FONT face=Times New Roman][/FONT] [/P]

 

[Rhino]

Chip, your little table gets an F for accuracy. Don't blame it on AirInc. It was inadequately explained and quotes rates that are mythical.

I'm surprised. You are usually more careful.

 

[chipmunn]

[BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Rhino, t[/FONT][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]he table clearly said who the source was, did you miss that point?[/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Pitguy, US Airways is a major airline by definition, whose pilots are now almost the lowest paid for the traditional hub and spoke airlines. In addition, the pilot group represents 10 percent of the labor force, pre-restructuring agreement accounted for 30 percent of the total labor expense, and provided 60 percent of the total labor concessions. On the other hand, 90 percent of the employees provided just 40 percent of the concessions. If you believe pilots should reduce their pay by about 75 percent, how about your work group the mechanics and for that matter the other labor groups reducing their pay by 75 percent too? [/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Pitguy, do you believe in socialism and by the way, would you care to identify yourself? [/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Chip[/FONT]

 

[AOG-N-IT]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/23/2002 9:52:25 PM chipmunn wrote:

[FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Pitguy:[/FONT]

[FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]US Airways is a major airline has defined by the definition provided by the DOT. US Airways and its management have every intention to grow mainline ASMs and long-haul flying, when the economic environment permits.[/FONT]

[FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Your attack on pilot wages is unwarranted. US Airways operates a fleet of 279 mainline type aircraft and is near the bottom of mainline wages. [/FONT] AOG-N-IT Comments...according to our situation that you are so eager to illuminate for us everyday, We are at the bottom of the industry in regards to our financial conditon, Hince your salary should be at or below the bottom of the so-called majors pay-scale. What you have given..does not free you of your actual worth Vs. your current compensation levels. I have never drawn wages remotely close to what my counterparts at the other majors have, regardless of the economic climate. Why should you or anyone be doing so at any point , considering the facts as you relay them?
[FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]The pilot group represents 10 percent of the workforce, pre-restructuring agreements was 30 percent of the labor expense, but gave 60 percent of the labor savings.[/FONT]

[FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]How much is enough for the pilots to give, 70 percent, 80 percent, 90 percent, or even 100 percent, so you and others do not have to give a concession. Some pilot gave over $100,000 per year in income and in my case my cut so far, which could be more, is $75,000 per year.[/FONT]

[FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]What's enough, so you and others do not have to take cuts? US Airways pilots are not overpaid at their current structure and in my opinion to suggest otherwise is wrong. This is not socialism and people are paid according to market rates and what an employer can afford to pay.[/FONT] AOG-N-IT comments, Good Point Chip...The operative issue is..They can't afford to pay you what they have been in either the past or present tense. You guys have been drawing salaries that are way beyond the scope of this companies ability to make a return on your efforts. This is not your fault...but it's clearly an oversight that has lead us into our current situation. This has not taken place over night either. The company has operated out of fear in regard to keepng things real , especially regarding the pilots contracts Parity plus 1% for the #7 airline in the nation...when comparing it to airlines that rank among the largest in the world? Give me and the rest of us a break!! When your personal concessions alone are enough to pay 3 others entire salaries for a year?...Your sense of self-worth and the industry standards according to you , are way too heck out of whack. It's no small wonder we keep losing ground and money they way we have.

 

[pitguy]

To clarify 'my' opinion for anyone that may have cloud pollution in their head. Please remember I did not go to college for 15 to 20 years as one pilot stated that they go. But I will do the best I can.

I feel that the reality is that being a pilot is a great part time job. You spend a few days on the road and have a nice 'road life' then when you are working you have a one man job that you have two guys assigned to in case one has to go potty. I know it is an FAA thing. But still most of the time it is pretty easy work.

So this brings us to the reality of what should the job pay. Please do not consider the past. The past was the past and the past was not so good for the company. Think of the future. The future could be our company going out of business and every one looking for jobs. We have a responsibility to not leverage an unfair contract from the company were they can not compete with other carriers. The mechanics accepted the contract the company offered even though it left them making slightly above a commuter wage (and less than a transmission mechanic per one poster). It is fair to demand that the pilot group take a similar pay wage too. There is no way to justify paying much more than a commuter pilot since we can not afford it. Please remember we are in chapter 11. We are not a carrier whom one may want to compare us to that is not in chapter 11. ---Key point here--- We are poor and can not pay the big money anymore. What you made yesterday does not matter today. One must be responsible to our company which in turn will make us more responsible to our families. ---No pain no gain--- Please don't hate the messenger. Don't worry you can live fine on $65,000 to $100,000.

To answer your question Chip I am a PIT mechanic.

 

[767jetz]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/24/2002 12:23:41 AM chipmunn wrote:


[FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3]Rhino, t[/FONT][FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3]he table clearly said who the source was, did you miss that point?[/FONT]



[FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3]Chip[/FONT]
----------------
[/blockquote]

Chip,

I don't think anyone missed the point. We all know you quoted Air,Inc. Just as you should know that the info you were quoting was inaccurate. So who's at fault? Air,Inc. for publishing numbers, or you for taking inaccurate info from a source, probably completely out of context, to try to support your position on this forum?

I still find it interesting that you refuse to correct yourself or answer the question of actual compensation on comparable aircraft. IMHO your true colors are showing, and your credibility is suffering. From what I've been reading, I am not alone in my opinion.