AAI contract

[Beantown]

Well I won't come to AirTran if the pay goes down to $38. I already am going to have to take a second morgage to make it at $43. $38 is a total joke. At least JB at $47 plus the time and a half over 70 hrs gives you a fighting chance to feed your family. I will never understand why rich CA making 150,000 always want to sell out the new hires so they can make an extra couple thousand. -Bean

 

[Lear70]

I wouldn't necessarily call $150k a year "rich", and the CA's here made sure the new guy didn't get hosed for the last contract.

With the exception of a few notable senior CA's I can think of (one of which I'm paired with next month and SAP 2 won't let me out of ANY of the trips), the vast majority of the CA's here support the F/O's and are just as torqued as we are...

That said, I don't blame you. I wouldn't have come here for $38 an hour either. As it was, I worked my import car business on the side and dropped as much time as they would allow my 1st year here to make ends meet.

That dollar amount still, as of now, is UNVERIFIED by the actual T.A. document (although I trust the person who told me and saw it first-hand). Don't swear us off as an airline yet. I'll post the details here as I get them and there's a pretty large VOTE NO campaign beginning.

Guys have even printed up stickers and I'm planning on dropping every trip I can around the road trips to make sure I can attend and pass out the "Top 10 reasons to vote NO" along with supporting documentation (thanks BD).

This thing needs to be crushed. Quickly, calmly, professionally, yet thoroughly.

 

[newnan]

Fo's in their first year will not have their pay changed at date of signing. New hires after DOS will be subject to the market average

[FONT=FJJKDD+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman]FO Pay: first year, SNB- minimum of $38.50/ hour rising as required to meet market conditions [/FONT][FONT=FJJKDD+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman]​

[/FONT][FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings][/FONT][FONT=FJJKDD+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman]First Officers in their First Year at the effective date of this agreement will be paid not less than their current hourly rates during their First Year. [/FONT]


[FONT=FJJKDD+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman]Page 4 of 11
[/FONT]

 

[newnan]

This is another concession, the company wanted control of first year pay in their initial proposal in '05 and they got it.

 

[Lear70]

How the heck did I miss THAT? Was that on the PP presentation or the PDF file they sent with the bulletpoints?

We won't be able to attract ANYONE with a $38.50 1st year wage, a 5 year+ upgrade (it's already up to 3 for people currently on property), salaries in the bottom 3 major carriers, and the worst reserve rules in the industry.

You CA's will be flying with Embry Riddle grads with 300 hours total time before you can say, "Don't touch NUTHIN'!"

 

[newnan]

How the heck did I miss THAT? Was that on the PP presentation or the PDF file they sent with the bulletpoints?

We won't be able to attract ANYONE with a $38.50 1st year wage, a 5 year+ upgrade (it's already up to 3 for people currently on property), salaries in the bottom 3 major carriers, and the worst reserve rules in the industry.

You CA's will be flying with Embry Riddle grads with 300 hours total time before you can say, "Don't touch NUTHIN'!"

Check out the pdf with preamble, there is a little more detail but not much. Sucks worse with the more details we see

 

[Lear70]

Yeah, I skimmed that since most of it was re-hashing and I just wanted to wait until the full T.A. language was out.

Guess I'll have to go read that more thoroughly... You're right, it gets worse and worse every time more details are released.

 

[BSkin]

I will make one comment.

After dealing with SAP 2 all day, made my first request at 12:01, 3 subsequent requests, watching the open time disappear slowly but surely, and NO response back from Crew Planning of why they're denying the trips, I've had enough of SAP 2.

I will NOT vote yes for ANY agreement that doesn't FORCE the company to administer SAP 2 in a way that we can see real-time using a realistic floor.

I've been doing SAP 2 for 3 months since I got off build-up lines and have YET to receive a SINGLE request, and I make on average about half a dozen each month during the window.

Lear, SAP 2 is an absolute joke now, atleast for FOs. We can thank the union for that one too! I've tried every month (except this one) to trade atleast 1 or 2 trips, and nothing -- no way of knowing why, etc. Open time on Flica works much better.

As far as the TA, how can one even consider voting yes when just about every power-point slide makes you cringe! Makes you wonder what the he!! our dues are doing for us!

 

[FlyWolf]

I will make one comment.

After dealing with SAP 2 all day, made my first request at 12:01, 3 subsequent requests, watching the open time disappear slowly but surely, and NO response back from Crew Planning of why they're denying the trips, I've had enough of SAP 2.

I will NOT vote yes for ANY agreement that doesn't FORCE the company to administer SAP 2 in a way that we can see real-time using a realistic floor.

I've been doing SAP 2 for 3 months since I got off build-up lines and have YET to receive a SINGLE request, and I make on average about half a dozen each month during the window.

OK, sorry,,, we now return you to a rant-free zone.

"Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop doing amphetamines".

God, I am glad I am able to get all my schedule change requests done between SAP1 and 2 here at Midex. If the guy who I am paired with is truly a Hero (a guy who thinks he is a gift to aviation), then the DAP will take care of getting out of his trips, don't care even if I loose money at this point.

Flydaplane, be carefull with some of the guys coming from the 17 side, watch them like a hawk

 

[Lear70]

Yeah, just got through reading the PDF file and adjusting all my times for last month's and this month's analysis based on all the new work rules.

6% pay cut on EVERY trip, 3% in pure loss of door close (3 minutes each leg, 3-4 legs per day = 9-12 minutes per day lost with 5.5 average credit per day), plus 3% lost (per AP) on going to a "rolling 3 month average from prior year" instead of customer scheduled times on a block-or-better basis (over half my legs blocked less than CURRENT scheduled times so this is a real kicker).

I have 54 legs total next month. Losing 3 minutes on each is 162 minutes of pay or 2:42 of flight pay lost. Try to tell me THAT'S not a concession??!!

So, my 9% increase in salary just turned into a 3% increase.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll take current book, won't play fu*k your buddy (new hires and reserves), and will ask to send a NEW Negotiating Committee back to the table with the immediate commencement of picketing and spooling up the SPC for action as soon as the mediator will release us.

Incidentally, has anyone noticed how CLOSELY the new T.A. resembles the ORIGINAL management proposal from 2+ years ago? They got almost everything they asked for... must be nice.

 

[Thunderchief]

The Npa doesn't have the TA already in pdf format?! Why sit on it? Get it disseminated NOW!! I am not sure if I'm more pissed at the weak TA or the fact my BOD is sitting on it!! Not impressed.... TC

 

[Eagle757shark]

I am chilled. I'm waiting for the TA, and then running my own numbers. Sorry to attack. I could have worded it differently. But, you ssem to be spilling lots of information. And people are listening to you. PLEASE be accurate and review before you post. Peeple need to make an INFORMED decision, not an emotional one.

Anything over 70 seats should not even be discussed and it should be a NO!
This selling our soles to the lowest bidder has to stop in this industry. The only reason we don't have RJ's flying for AirTran now, is because there is no room to put them in Atlanta. If this Midwest merger goes through, you can bet that an EMB-190 or EMB-170 will be right around the corner. Those airplanes should be flown by AirTran pilots. If you give on this, then they will get closer and closer to what you have now. I think going over 50 seats is to much, but I draw the line at 70 seats and say no more! End of discussion not negotiable!

 

[FlyWolf]

Wow, very scary

 

[Heavy Set]

How the heck did I miss THAT? Was that on the PP presentation or the PDF file they sent with the bulletpoints?

We won't be able to attract ANYONE with a $38.50 1st year wage, a 5 year+ upgrade (it's already up to 3 for people currently on property), salaries in the bottom 3 major carriers, and the worst reserve rules in the industry.

You CA's will be flying with Embry Riddle grads with 300 hours total time before you can say, "Don't touch NUTHIN'!"

CAL's first year rate is $29.96 per hour, and Delta's is $49. People are still lining up for CAL though.

 

[Lear70]

CAL's first year rate is $29.96 per hour, and Delta's is $49. People are still lining up for CAL though.

That's because the payout in the end is much higher. They have 4 year CA's over there, right?

Our 4 year CA is $124.39
CAL 4 year CA is $134 SNB, $175 Widebody

Our 12 year CA is $160.60
CAL 12 year CA is $163 LNB, 186 Widebody

And that's our New and Improved proposed pay (which doesn't take into account a 6% hit from loss of work rules) and the old CAL pay scales before the new ones that are currently being negotiated and will, in all likelihood, increase CAL by 10-15% minimum.

That equates to well over $1 Million more in career earnings at CAL. Therefore, for CAL, there's a payoff accepting a low starting pay rate.

Here,,, not so much.

Or, put another way, which company would YOU go to work for if you had to commute for both, knowing what our reserve rules will be and the pay 1st year with resulting increases and career expectations?

If I hadn't been hired early last year and were making this decision now, I personally wouldn't have left PCL if the proposed T.A. and first year pay come to pass, especially with the upgrade times here starting to creep up and all the other majors hiring (some of my friends who were called recently by AAI are waiting until this is settled to make a decision).

Under the new pay scale, if I don't upgrade, it will take me until year 5 just to MATCH what I would be making as an RJ Captain if I had stayed. That's pretty pathetic for a "major" airline. At CAL, I could have done that by year 3.

I'm doing my best to make this place the equivalent of a career at a Legacy carrier. This T.A. doesn't exactly move things in that direction.

 

[RadioClash]

Original post deleted. I was calculating lost pay today due to slow loading of cargo, after the door was closed. It was pointed out after making this post that we will get paid on the 6th minute of a delay. Therefore it has been deleted.

Bottom line,

If I am on the plane and the door is shut I should be paid. We all should be paid.

And scope? Not even going to go there. I saw the erosion of the flying from the mainline carrier that we fed at my previous company. It sucks.

I vote NO.

We are not even in the ballpark for getting a yes vote out of me with this TA.

 

[Heavy Set]

That's because the payout in the end is much higher. They have 4 year CA's over there, right?

Our 4 year CA is $124.39
CAL 4 year CA is $134 SNB, $175 Widebody

Our 12 year CA is $160.60
CAL 12 year CA is $163 LNB, 186 Widebody

And that's our New and Improved proposed pay (which doesn't take into account a 6% hit from loss of work rules) and the old CAL pay scales before the new ones that are currently being negotiated and will, in all likelihood, increase CAL by 10-15% minimum.

That equates to well over $1 Million more in career earnings at CAL. Therefore, for CAL, there's a payoff accepting a low starting pay rate.

Here,,, not so much.

Or, put another way, which company would YOU go to work for if you had to commute for both, knowing what our reserve rules will be and the pay 1st year with resulting increases and career expectations?

If I hadn't been hired early last year and were making this decision now, I personally wouldn't have left PCL if the proposed T.A. and first year pay come to pass, especially with the upgrade times here starting to creep up and all the other majors hiring (some of my friends who were called recently by AAI are waiting until this is settled to make a decision).

Under the new pay scale, if I don't upgrade, it will take me until year 5 just to MATCH what I would be making as an RJ Captain if I had stayed. That's pretty pathetic for a "major" airline. At CAL, I could have done that by year 3.

I'm doing my best to make this place the equivalent of a career at a Legacy carrier. This T.A. doesn't exactly move things in that direction.

That 4 year upgrade at CAL will stop when age 65 is enacted. They have many scheduled retirements over the next few years that may not happen. Thanks Pratter!

 

[BSkin]

AHHH, but as someone else pointed out above, after 5 minutes you get paid -- still b$hit! VOTE NO

 

[RadioClash]

AHHH, but as someone else pointed out above, after 5 minutes you get paid -- still b$hit! VOTE NO

I stand corrected. I forgot about that wonderful tidbit. Wonder who keeps track of that and then the lengthy grievance process when it gets totally screwed up. Nice.

Voting No!

 

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

I will make one comment.

After dealing with SAP 2 all day, made my first request at 12:01, 3 subsequent requests, watching the open time disappear slowly but surely, and NO response back from Crew Planning of why they're denying the trips, I've had enough of SAP 2.

I will NOT vote yes for ANY agreement that doesn't FORCE the company to administer SAP 2 in a way that we can see real-time using a realistic floor.

I've been doing SAP 2 for 3 months since I got off build-up lines and have YET to receive a SINGLE request, and I make on average about half a dozen each month during the window.

OK, sorry,,, we now return you to a rant-free zone.

"Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop doing amphetamines".

Agreed. They haven't even LOOKED at my schedule and the OT keeps going away. This is ridiculous.

 

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

Anything over 70 seats should not even be discussed and it should be a NO!
This selling our soles to the lowest bidder has to stop in this industry. The only reason we don't have RJ's flying for AirTran now, is because there is no room to put them in Atlanta. If this Midwest merger goes through, you can bet that an EMB-190 or EMB-170 will be right around the corner. Those airplanes should be flown by AirTran pilots. If you give on this, then they will get closer and closer to what you have now. I think going over 50 seats is to much, but I draw the line at 70 seats and say no more! End of discussion not negotiable!

I agree with you. I'm just saying....facts...not emotion...and the facts speak for themselves.

 

[igneousy2]

Don't get caught up in the symantics...

I've been through this at my last carrier (on the NC) before and the reason nobody (company or pilots) wants "back-pay" to be paid is because of accounting reasons. Say you total everyones backpay up for last year and it comes to 1.0 million dollars. Now, in addition to the 1.0 million, you have to pay taxes in 2006 for backpay and then this new expense of 1.0 million dollars didn't happen yesterday according to the accountants, it happened last year. So now, they have to go back through their books and recalculate things like taxes, insurance, 401K matches, 401K contribution limitations. If your FA's have numerous "me to" provisions then this could also cause a grievance from the FA's toward your management. This same reasoning would apply to pilots aka your income taxes. It is arguable that you nor the company wouldn't have to do this, however, the lawyers/accountants want it this way because it is cleaner.

Express Jet got a "signing bonus" where the ammount was calculated as back-pay, however, it was paid as a "bonus"

I don't have an overall opinion on your TA as I have not read it, but I would consider it a deal breaker if my "signing bonus" did not at least equal (or be very close to) what I would have made if you retro'd my pay. I feel very strongly about this one point because if you don't hold the company to this, they have zero incentive to negotiate an expeditious contract if they don't think you are going to hold them to basic principal of back-pay.

Additionally, I agree with the posters about standing firm on Scope, I am of the opinion that it is far better to carve out a special group of pilots within your group - with the same type of numbers limitations - with reduced pay and benefits if necessary then to allow the flying to be completely outsourced. At least you will still retain control of that flying and provide furlough protection for your junior pilots.

Also, anything close to allowing flying with anything close to 70 seats...even 60 seats is too dangerous. Whatever number you pick they will simply choose a number slightly less than that number and have an unlimited number of those planes.

Also be careful about thinking about specific aircraft when looking at your scope language. Learn from history - at AA at one time had a scope provision that limited American Eagle from flying more than 50 jets with 45 or more seats.

Ever wonder why an EMB-140 has 44 seats?

When AA pilots made the provision, the only thing envisioned was 50 seat RJs so they thought their 45 seat provision would cover them. It was also "certified" seats so it didn't matter if AA took seats out. (this is also not very economical as you carry around all the extra weight without the added benefit of having extra seats)

AA went to EMB and ordered 50 EMB-145's and told them "...ya know, if you had a 44 seat jet we would order hundreds of them!"

EMB came back and said "We can't do 44, but we can do 37" - this was due to the way the EMB-145 was constructed, an EMB-135 is an EMB-145 with an entire fuselage plug not installed.

So AA orderded over a hundred of the EMB-135's with 37 seats.

A year or so later, EMB came back to AA and told them that..."our engineers have been working on the problem, and it turns out that if you only put on half the plug on the front and half the plug on the back we can give you your 44 seat jet"

AA then converted their remaining EMB-135 orders to EMB-140 orders.

AA pilots eventually gave up their scope (that's another story) so the remaining EMB-140 orders were converted to EMB-145 orders.

Don't think that if you guys settle on a 69 seat scope limitation that EMB won't all of a sudden come out with an EMB-169. The way aircraft certification works...that would be a mostly paper-work transaction. Whatever number you "pick" it better be low enough that you aren't going to be losing any sleep if a manufacturer suddenly makes a plane with one less seat.

Good luck.

 

[Lear70]

T.A. Watch: Day 8. Not even a blast email as to why the T.A. isn't done or if they're still working on the M&I questions over the weekend like they promised.

Putting together a group of people who are interested in passing out "counter-intelligence" paperwork at the roadshows and in ops for a few hours a day.

If interested, email me at [email protected]

Gotta get the word out to the pilots who don't watch this board or the underground site. If all they hear is the union's take on this, we might not get the overwhelming NO response we need.

 

[RadioClash]

...passing out "counter-intelligence" paperwork at the roadshows and in ops for a few hours a day.

If interested, email me at [email protected]

Gotta get the word out ...

Lear70,

I think in an earlier post you mentioned stickers. How and when can I get some?

Thanks

 

[fletch717]

I want one too. I will donate money to pay for printing.

Fletch

 

[Ty Webb]

Putting together a group of people who are interested in passing out "counter-intelligence" paperwork at the roadshows and in ops for a few hours a day.

If interested, email me at [email protected]

Count me in . .. . .. . . . . for time, and money, if necessary.

.

 

[Lear70]

Thanks for the offers to help... keep 'em coming! If we can get enough people, it should only be one or two rotations in ops and one roadshow for each person.

There's another guy who created them, I need to download it and maybe tweak it a little.

http://www.mediamax.com/goingboeing/Links/956D40C45A

That's the original, high-res. I'm thinking of adding a bit to it.

He said he was contacting Kinkos to see about the cost of printing them as non-permanent stickers. I'll give him a shout and see what he's come up with.

As far as a slogan in addition to the icon, what do you think?

Just say NO.

Current Book or CONCESSIONS?

What are YOU worth?

YGBFSM (You've Gotta Be Fugging Sh*tting Me)

KMDA (Kiss My Dumb A*s)

OK, the last two aren't very professional, but it'd be satisfying...

Seriously, any more slogans to put above/below the TA with a red circle and slash through it?

 

[scarlet]

NO = SCOPE

Yes= WELCOME MESA,S*taco,,,,, with 85 seats on alot of routes...

 

[Mertz72]

737 order

Has anyone else seen this statement from Boeing's web site about the Airtran 737 order.

"Boeing Statement on AirTran 737 Announcement
SEATTLE, May 23, 2007 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] is pleased that AirTran Airlines has announced its intention to expand its fleet of Next Generation 737s. Boeing is working closely with AirTran to finalize the order. Orlando, Florida-based AirTran operates an all-Boeing fleet which benefits from the unmatched reliability of its Boeing aircraft."

There is nothing in there about this being an order. It simply says that they are discussing an order. As a matter of fact, Boeing does not list those 15 airplanes in their order book. Makes me wonder if this isn't meant to sway some opinions of people who will base their vote on a quick upgrade time. The timeing of the announcement along with the Boeing response is a little suspicious.

 

[RadioClash]

Personnally I like YGTBFSM, maybe you get put that somewhere at the bottom of the slogan in real small point font. At least we would know it was there...