Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Airways E190 Pay Scales..  
User currently offlinePropilotJW From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 589 posts, RR: 6
Posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 5628 times:

Does anyone have any insight as to what US Airways will be paying their E190 F/O's and Capt's? Will it be lower than JetBlue or Higher or the same.


You can see the JetBlue pilot pay here:

http://www.willflyforfood.cc/Payscales/JetBluePay.htm


Anyone know about US Airways?????????

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineApodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4280 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 5577 times:

I heard today that the Scope Clause has been removed from the merger agreement pertaining to the 190's. Of course, this was a rumor, and I have not confirmed this.

So to answer your question, you may have to ask Air Wisconsin or Republic.


User currently offlineA330323X From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 3039 posts, RR: 43
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 5531 times:

Quoting PropilotJW (Thread starter):
Does anyone have any insight as to what US Airways will be paying their E190 F/O's and Capt's? Will it be lower than JetBlue or Higher or the same.

The payscale is a bit higher than JetBlue. You can see it at the end of the document at http://www.donlinrecano.net/dr201/mwc/04-13819/dk003193-0005.pdf.

But don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen. (I certainly wouldn't hold my breath waiting for what Apodino wants to happen, either.)



I'm the expert on here on two things, neither of which I care about much anymore.
User currently offlineBucky707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1028 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5517 times:

Quoting Apodino (Reply 1):
I heard today that the Scope Clause has been removed from the merger agreement pertaining to the 190's. Of course, this was a rumor, and I have not confirmed this.

Not true. As part of the transition agreement negotiated between the combined pilot groups at AWA/USAir and the company, the AWA/USAir pilots will be flying the E-190. For the years 2006-2008, top captain pay is $94.74 at ten years and top F/O pay is$52.16 at six years.

The transistion agreement does allow 93 CRJ-900s to be outsourced and flown for the combined company.


User currently offlineApodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4280 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5462 times:

Quoting Bucky707 (Reply 3):
Not true. As part of the transition agreement negotiated between the combined pilot groups at AWA/USAir and the company, the AWA/USAir pilots will be flying the E-190. For the years 2006-2008, top captain pay is $94.74 at ten years and top F/O pay is$52.16 at six years.

Right. I am not denying that that agreement had been made. What I simply stated was, that someone at work told me today that yesterday, this part of the agreement had been thrown out. Part of the reason as it was explained to me was that Republic threw a hissy fit over the whole situation. Like I said, I don't know if its true or not.

And we don't even know if US will ever order or fly the 190. Given the rules associated with this, mainly that any 190's ordered by mainline doesn't count toward the minimum number of Mainline planes that have to fly for them, and the fact that the CRJ-900 is out there, and the increased costs to mainline of adding a type, getting the 190 on property does not make economical sense at all for US. This clause that the pilots slipped into the agreement, whether or not it was thrown out, is not good for the company as a whole and it lessens the chance of 190's being on the property any time soon.

Still, with several other workgroups involved in one airline type, I still think its wrong that the pilot groups get all the say over this issue. The Flight Attendants have to work on the flights, and the mechanics have to repair them. Shouldn't they get a say in this whole matter? Why only the pilots?


User currently offlineApodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4280 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5440 times:

As a follow up, I was just on the ALPA site for USAirways. The transition agreement has been ratified by the membership with the exception of the 190 scope clause. That provision is still set to be voted on by the membership. But it has not been officially ratified yet. And from the sounds of things, it may not be.

http://crewroom.alpa.org/aaa/Desktop...iewCodeaPhone.aspx?DocumentID=1473

If you are a USAirways pilot with a vote. I urge a no vote on this for the reasons I mentioned above.


User currently offlineBucky707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1028 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5381 times:

the part of the agreement for the 190 will be approved. I have no doubt about that. Read the link that you posted. It was sent out with a strong endorsement for approval. The rest of the transition agreement was approved by the MEC without going to a pilot vote, because it did not materially change pay rates or work rules. The rest of the agreement had to go out for a vote by the pilots for the above reasons. Thats the only reason for the delay in actual approval. But it will be approved.

[Edited 2005-10-07 02:19:43]

[Edited 2005-10-07 02:20:58]

User currently offlineA330323X From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 3039 posts, RR: 43
Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5363 times:

Quoting Apodino (Reply 4):
What I simply stated was, that someone at work told me today that yesterday, this part of the agreement had been thrown out. Part of the reason as it was explained to me was that Republic threw a hissy fit over the whole situation.

I hate to break it to you, but US can't just arbitrarily "throw out" a part of their pilots' contract that they don't like, whether Republic wants them to or not.  Yeah sure

Quoting Apodino (Reply 5):
And from the sounds of things, it may not be.

Where are those sounds coming from, except perhaps delusional Air Wisconsin employees?

Quoting Apodino (Reply 5):
If you are a USAirways pilot with a vote. I urge a no vote on this for the reasons I mentioned above.

Er, I must've missed those reasons. Republic and Air Wisconsin and everybody else can't wait to get their hands on the -190s. This prevents that from happening. That's why you're trying to talk people into voting no, don't insult anyone's intelligence by claiming otherwise. Not that it'll matter, this'll pass by a landslide.



I'm the expert on here on two things, neither of which I care about much anymore.
User currently offlineApodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4280 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5246 times:

I am a little bit biased as an Air Wisconsin employee I will admit that. But my point is, it will still be ALPA pilots flying the planes no matter which airline flies them. Because USAirways will not throw money into the 190's with this agreement because its not profitable, the only way you will get ALPA pilots flying 190's for USAirways is if you let USAirways outsource the flying. USAirways pilots are not protecting any jobs by voting on this and may actually be costing jobs, because jobs that would go to Jets for Jobs pilots if the 190 flying was outsourced, won't go to anyone if this does pass. ALPA has to realize this.

And I will say it before and I will say it again, with all the other workgroups that go into actually flying one of these things, why do pilots get all the clout. Flight Attendants, Mechanics, Ramp Workers, Dispatchers and other people all are just as much a part of an airline and operating one of these planes as are the Pilots. Why are the pilots so worried about the scope clauses, without letting any of the other workgroups have a say? It just doesn't seem right to me that one workgrou p can tell an airline how to run itself when so many other individuals are at stake.

I will say again to US pilots. Vote NO on this to save your fellow members jobs.


User currently offlineSonOfACaptain From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1747 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5241 times:

Quoting Apodino (Reply 5):
f you are a USAirways pilot with a vote. I urge a no vote on this for the reasons I mentioned above.

I am not going to get into an argument about the 190 (I strongly disagree with you  wink , I am just going to say that the scope will probably be a landslide. It adds protection, and it is not like the current mainline guys are going to fly it, the furloughed pilots were. So why not get them back at mainline. Ironically, it took the HP pilots to make a stand for the US furloughed pilots.

-SOAC



Non Illegitimi Carborundum
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5235 times:

Quoting PropilotJW (Thread starter):
Does anyone have any insight as to what US Airways will be paying their E190 F/O's and Capt's? Will it be lower than JetBlue or Higher or the same.

Well, since USAirways has ZERO Embraer 190's on order the question is kind of moot. Also, since USAirways has Zero official plans to get Embrear190's the question is kind of moot.



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineA330323X From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 3039 posts, RR: 43
Reply 11, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5203 times:

Quoting Apodino (Reply 8):
But my point is, it will still be ALPA pilots flying the planes no matter which airline flies them.

Hate to break it to you, but Republic is IBT, and SkyWest is non-union.

I'm sure you'll just ignore that like you've ignored everything else I've pointed out, though.

Quoting Apodino (Reply 8):
USAirways pilots are not protecting any jobs by voting on this and may actually be costing jobs, because jobs that would go to Jets for Jobs pilots if the 190 flying was outsourced, won't go to anyone if this does pass.

Oh, you mean the J4J provisions that Republic is already ignoring with respect to the -170s? Well I'm sure ALPA has a lot of faith in them. Not.

And in any event, if, as seems likely given the current situation, US opts for the CRJ-900 instead of the EMB-190, the same number of J4J positions will be created.



I'm the expert on here on two things, neither of which I care about much anymore.
User currently offlineBucky707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1028 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5191 times:

Quoting Apodino (Reply 8):
Flight Attendants, Mechanics, Ramp Workers, Dispatchers and other people all are just as much a part of an airline and operating one of these planes as are the Pilots. Why are the pilots so worried about the scope clauses, without letting any of the other workgroups have a say?

Know what, you are right. But, lets say you did give the F/As, Mechanics, ramp workers and dispatchers at U/AWA a vote? Do you think they would vote to outsource those jobs, or do you think they would vote, like the pilots, to keep those jobs at USAir so that USAir employees can operate those aircraft? As it works out, those people will all benefit from the scope negotiated by the pilots. And I think those of you who say USAir will never get any of these aircraft are wrong. I do think you will see an order for them very shortly.


User currently offlineHPA320 From Mexico, joined Jul 2004, 160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5175 times:

Sorry but outsourcing stinks...

filler

filler



America West Airlines. 1983-2005. The Journey Continues...
User currently onlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6771 posts, RR: 17
Reply 14, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5171 times:

Outsourcing bad..

Some companies/industries/government principalities are actually reversing outsourcing trends and doing very well..



Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlineSHUPirate1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3670 posts, RR: 16
Reply 15, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5155 times:

Quoting A330323X (Reply 11):
Hate to break it to you, but Republic is IBT

Is Republic IBT? I thought so, but then the Trans States/GoJets argument got me thinking? You can see the other thread for a discussion on that though.



Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
User currently offlineOuboy79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 4599 posts, RR: 22
Reply 16, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5139 times:

Okay here is my question, exactly how much cost will have to go into bringing in the 190s that was already under taken with the 170s? If the 190s are the replacements for the 737s like they are expected to be, they should be mainline birds. Air Wisky and Republic have their little chunks of LCC...but that doesn't mean they should get the 190 flying as well. Republic is just another Mesa Group in its early stages and Air Wisky would be in a load of trouble if US Airways didn't sign them.

Air Wisky gets 70 jets, and potentially a lot of CRJ-900s soon, and some ground handling jobs. Be happy with it. You are nothing more than a regional partner. If you want to fly the bigger jets...do the Indy Air thing.  Smile


User currently offlineApodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4280 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5136 times:

Quoting Bucky707 (Reply 3):
ot true. As part of the transition agreement negotiated between the combined pilot groups at AWA/USAir and the company, the AWA/USAir pilots will be flying the E-190. For the years 2006-2008, top captain pay is $94.74 at ten years and top F/O pay is$52.16 at six years.


And if Air Wisky does the flying, top pay for a 190 captain under the current ALPA provisions would be $113 and would likely go up. Thats more than the USAirways agreement would be. ALPA pilots would get paid more with Air Wisconsin flying the planes, and it would cost USAirways less.

That having been said, even though I am opposed to the scope clause it is probably the best thing for Air Wisconsin, since it would make it more likely that they would get 90 seat RJs, where is if its true that its not going away, which contradicts information from my sources. Republic is steaming about this because they want the 190 flying badly and they likely won't get it.


User currently offlineApodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4280 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5121 times:

Quoting Ouboy79 (Reply 16):
Okay here is my question, exactly how much cost will have to go into bringing in the 190s that was already under taken with the 170s? If the 190s are the replacements for the 737s like they are expected to be, they should be mainline birds. Air Wisky and Republic have their little chunks of LCC...but that doesn't mean they should get the 190 flying as well. Republic is just another Mesa Group in its early stages and Air Wisky would be in a load of trouble if US Airways didn't sign them.

Thats the biggest problem with the scope clause because as its worded, the 190's cannot be 737 replacements. The contract says that mainline has to keep a specific number of jets in its mainline fleet. It also says that any 190 jets brought in to fly for mainline do not count toward the number of mainline jets for the purposes of achieving the minimum required. Which means that if 737's are retired, something else has to be brought in to replace them besides the 190s. The only logical plane that fits this description, the A319.


User currently offlineA330323X From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 3039 posts, RR: 43
Reply 19, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5100 times:

Quoting Ouboy79 (Reply 16):
Okay here is my question, exactly how much cost will have to go into bringing in the 190s that was already under taken with the 170s?

I'm not sure what you mean.

Quoting Ouboy79 (Reply 16):
Air Wisky and Republic have their little chunks of LCC...but that doesn't mean they should get the 190 flying as well.

Air Wisky gets 70 jets, and potentially a lot of CRJ-900s soon, and some ground handling jobs. Be happy with it. You are nothing more than a regional partner. If you want to fly the bigger jets...do the Indy Air thing.

Prepare to get yelled at by indignant ZW employees who feel entitled to the world.

Quoting Apodino (Reply 17):
ALPA pilots would get paid more with Air Wisconsin flying the planes, and it would cost USAirways less.

I'll be sorry I'm asking this, but how do you figure?

Quoting Apodino (Reply 17):
Republic is steaming about this because they want the 190 flying badly and they likely won't get it.

I'm sure Republic has their panties in a bunch, but again, that's not relevant to anything.

Quoting Apodino (Reply 18):
Thats the biggest problem with the scope clause because as its worded, the 190's cannot be 737 replacements. The contract says that mainline has to keep a specific number of jets in its mainline fleet. It also says that any 190 jets brought in to fly for mainline do not count toward the number of mainline jets for the purposes of achieving the minimum required. Which means that if 737's are retired, something else has to be brought in to replace them besides the 190s. The only logical plane that fits this description, the A319.

You really need to understand how the US ALPA MEC works. There *will* be additional scope relief. If not now, then later.



I'm the expert on here on two things, neither of which I care about much anymore.
User currently offlineApodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4280 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5025 times:

Quoting A330323X (Reply 19):
I'll be sorry I'm asking this, but how do you figure?

Look at my numbers in the previous post. US tops out at $93 under the new agreement, and Air Wisconsins current top out on the 146, which would be similar on the 190 due to AC size, is $113, 20 dollars an hour more.


User currently offlineSonOfACaptain From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1747 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5008 times:

Quoting Apodino (Reply 17):
ALPA pilots would get paid more with Air Wisconsin flying the planes, and it would cost USAirways less.

I can assure you, the pilots would much rather fly for mainline than ZW. Most of them will not go to ZW if that is where the 190s go. I also believe US would make more money flying the 170 because they wouldn't have to pay ZW to fly them.

-SOAC



Non Illegitimi Carborundum
User currently offlineA330323X From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 3039 posts, RR: 43
Reply 22, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5003 times:

Quoting Apodino (Reply 17):
ALPA pilots would get paid more with Air Wisconsin flying the planes, and it would cost USAirways less.



Quoting A330323X (Reply 19):
I'll be sorry I'm asking this, but how do you figure?



Quoting Apodino (Reply 20):
Look at my numbers in the previous post. US tops out at $93 under the new agreement, and Air Wisconsins current top out on the 146, which would be similar on the 190 due to AC size, is $113, 20 dollars an hour more.

No, I get how ZW's payrate would be higher. What I don't get is how they'd cost US less.



I'm the expert on here on two things, neither of which I care about much anymore.
User currently offlineBucky707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1028 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4836 times:

Quoting Apodino (Reply 17):
And if Air Wisky does the flying, top pay for a 190 captain under the current ALPA provisions would be $113 and would likely go up. Thats more than the USAirways agreement would be. ALPA pilots would get paid more with Air Wisconsin flying the planes, and it would cost USAirways less.

And you don't think the industry wide lowering of wages will hit Air Wisky? If you don't, you are kidding yourself. Long term I think pilot pay for any aircraft will balance out, whether its at Air Wisky or mainline USAir.

Anyway, it's not the responsibility of the U/AWA pilots to make sure other ALPA pilots get a good deal. They need to do whats best for their pilots, and what's best for the U/AWA pilots is for them to fly the E-190.


User currently offlineCactusTECH From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4676 times:

As far as Im concerned accoriding to the America West contracts for pilots, Mainline pilots will fly the 190 as well as their mechanics will do the maintenance .

25 EMBQA : I'm still at a loss of the life of this thread. Your talking about an airlines pay scales for an airplane that is not in the airlines inventory, not e
26 A330323X : Well US and ALPA have agreed to a payscale for them--this isn't mere speculation about what US might pay them, this is what's in the contract. And I'
27 Ouboy79 : I did a poor job of trying to question Apodino on how it would really cost more for US to bring in the 190, when they already went through everything
28 A330323X : I imagine that there would have been a great deal of savings from commonality with the 170 and 190. However, now that they've sold the 170s and all t
29 Apodino : Thats kind of sad really. Everyone they represent is a pilot, it doesn't matter whether its a CRJ, or a 777, they are all pilots who are all equally
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
US Airways E190 Routes? posted Tue Aug 15 2006 20:37:52 by HPRamper
US Airways E190's posted Thu Dec 8 2005 21:20:11 by Flyby9877
US Airways 21% Pay Cuts! posted Fri Oct 15 2004 20:24:13 by Delta777
Pay Grade At US Airways (West) posted Tue Nov 21 2006 01:28:42 by Malaysia
US Airways Ask Pilots To Pay Cut posted Fri Aug 20 2004 22:08:07 by TACAA320
US Airways Pilots Offer To Cut Pay By 12.5 Pct posted Sat Jun 26 2004 05:13:30 by InnocuousFox
US Airways Cancelling Retirement Pay For Pilots? posted Sat Mar 1 2003 23:17:32 by XFSUgimpLB41X
US Airways Pilots Agree To Pay Cuts posted Wed Jul 10 2002 00:27:57 by Travelin man
US Airways Pilots Accept Pay Cut posted Tue Jul 9 2002 12:44:48 by Singapore_Air
'Ailing' US Airways Hikes Executives' Pay posted Mon Apr 9 2001 21:39:39 by DCA-ROCguy
US Airways And The E190 posted Fri Dec 17 2010 10:04:19 by csturdiv
US Airways Getting Rid Off Entire E190 Fleet? posted Thu Jul 23 2009 16:15:56 by ArniePie
US Airways PAY Scale posted Mon Jan 15 2007 10:01:53 by CALMSP
Pay Grade At US Airways (West) posted Tue Nov 21 2006 01:28:42 by Malaysia
US Airways Ask Pilots To Pay Cut posted Fri Aug 20 2004 22:08:07 by TACAA320