AAI conference call

[Ty Webb]

It's not Management's job to screw the pilots into the worst contract they can, it is their job to maximize profits.

P!ssing off the pilots is about the stupidest thing the management group can do at an airline like AAI, which relies on the pilots to make up for the inefficiencies of the system.

AAI Management need only look over to to the north side of Concourse C to see what "their" airline will operate like once the pilots stop caring.

My guess is that the result of this debacle will likely be either a real Union on the property (Teamsters more likely than ALPA) and/or a mass exodus that will leave this place in "recovery mode" every day . . . . .
.

 

[Just thinking]

Average rates for pay

Did a little reserach and out of 14 airlines AirTran is in the bottom three on the FO side (years 1-4) and for Captain's (year 3-6). Used those numbers because they keep saying that we should be able to upgrade in three years...
Captain average: $130.30
Highest Captain average: $182.00
AirTran Captain average:$115.50 (current book)
Proposed AirTran Captain average: $129.96 (don't forget dwell time losses which will drive it lower.

FO average: $62.65
Highest FO average:$86.50
AirTran FO average: $56.38 (current book)
Proposed AirTran FO average:$63.11/$62.04 (current FO's/future FO's) dwell penalty will drive it lower.

Profitable during lean years and industry is poised for great growth and profits.

Best our NC and BOD could get us is bottom of the chart pay?
FIRM-FOCUSED-FAIR????
FAILED-FAILED AND FAILED!!!!

I have a standing order for fifty stickers! Road show... I am there...
You want involvement... you got it..... sorry I trusted them to negotiate in good faith to represent me. Shameful representation at best... they should be ashamed.

 

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

It's not Management's job to screw the pilots into the worst contract they can, it is their job to maximize profits.

P!ssing off the pilots is about the stupidest thing the management group can do at anairline like AAI, which relies on the pilots to make up for the inefficiencies of the system.

AAI Management need only look over to to the north side of Concourse C to see what "their" airline will operate like once the pilots stop caring.

My guess is that the result of this debacle will likely be either a real Union on the property (Teamsters more likely than ALPA) and/or a mass exodus that will leave this place in a shambles.

.

You're right. But what I'm saying is if MGMT can sell a bag of crap to our union and our union can sell it to us, convincing us it's a good deal, then why wouldn't they? It brings costs lower and we're still "happy". Maybe this reaction is not what they expected. Or again, maybe the BOD is doing this on purpose.

 

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

I wonder if we can get our dues refunded?:nuts:

 

[CatfishVT9]

It sounds like this TA will go down hard and we haven't even read the actual verbage yet. Must be some great conversations in the crew lounge........ There is even a message on Crewtrac from the Coach about not leaving pro or con "propaganda" in the cockpits.

What I'm wondering is what we can realisticallly expect from a return to the table. What do we really expect improvements in? Scope, Pay rates, Insurance, FO pay, Door close, Average day, etc.??????? (Not to mention reserve since I just upgraded and my next year or so will be riding the couch) I'd be surprised if we can fix them all. What we need to do is let the company know what is definitely non-negotiable and what is. We need to remain competitive, but we don't need to be Skybus either.

Just thinkin'..................

 

[Lear70]

What I'm wondering is what we can realisticallly expect from a return to the table. What do we really expect improvements in? Scope, Pay rates, Insurance, FO pay, Door close, Average day, etc.??????? (Not to mention reserve since I just upgraded and my next year or so will be riding the couch) I'd be surprised if we can fix them all. What we need to do is let the company know what is definitely non-negotiable and what is. We need to remain competitive, but we don't need to be Skybus either.

Just thinkin'..................

What do I expect?

Current book plus COLA as a VERY LOW BASIC MINIMUM in EVERY section. They've been making money on our current contract, there's no reason they can't give us COLA and still make plenty of profit.

Scope: untouched. Not negotiable. P*ss right off.

Average day? No. Our 4 hour min day and 12 hour duty day are just fine, thankyouverymuch. Unless you want to go to a 6 hour average day AND unless you want to put, IN WRITING, that WE can control the pairing generator. Didn't think so.

Door close. Not negotiable. Sorry. P*ss right off. As one of our pilots said on the conference call, only SWA among Major airlines uses that. We'll go to that if you pay us SWA wages.

Insurance. Cost increases can't exceed the average increase in inflation or the CPI. 15% per year is not acceptable. Over a 4 year period, that means management is no longer paying ANY of our insurance premiums and we're completely footing the bill.

What everyone needs to remember is, ALL of the above with the exception of higher pay and lower insurance premiums IS ALREADY IN OUR CONTRACT. Simply voting NO retains them.

After the NO vote is back, at the next BOD meeting we submit two requirements that must be met or a recall begins.

1st: The NC, or at least the Chair, has to go. A new Wilson Poll is done, with the questions handed out to ALL the pilots in advance so everyone can have their answers prepared. The NC and the BOD is to follow the Wilson Polling data TO THE LETTER. Period.

2nd: MEMRAT. I know, I've pushed this before, but it's more important now than ever. NO change in current book can occur without putting it to a FULL VOTE. No changes in scope, wages, scheduling items, NOTHING. Lock their hands and require a full vote for every change to the Agreement. Sorry, just don't trust you anymore.

We need to change the current book just enough to close the loopholes they've been using to hose us and obtain solid middle-of-the-pack compensation, not one of the "bottom 3".

Yeah, it's going to take some tough negotiating. Yeah, we'll probably end up in a traditional picket and request for self-help. The Wilson Polling data indicated, according to AP in the last 'National', that enough of us support that to make it happen. It's unfortunate, but it's come to that...

How committed are you?

 

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

What do I expect?

Current book plus COLA as a VERY LOW BASIC MINIMUM in EVERY section. They've been making money on our current contract, there's no reason they can't give us COLA and still make plenty of profit.

Scope: untouched. Not negotiable. P*ss right off.

Average day? No. Our 4 hour min day and 12 hour duty day are just fine, thankyouverymuch. Unless you want to go to a 6 hour average day AND unless you want to put, IN WRITING, that WE can control the pairing generator. Didn't think so.

Door close. Not negotiable. Sorry. P*ss right off. As one of our pilots said on the conference call, only SWA among Major airlines uses that. We'll go to that if you pay us SWA wages.

Insurance. Cost increases can't exceed the average increase in inflation or the CPI. 15% per year is not acceptable. Over a 4 year period, that means management is no longer paying ANY of our insurance premiums and we're completely footing the bill.

What everyone needs to remember is, ALL of the above with the exception of higher pay and lower insurance premiums IS ALREADY IN OUR CONTRACT. Simply voting NO retains them.

After the NO vote is back, at the next BOD meeting we submit two requirements that must be met or a recall begins.

1st: The NC, or at least the Chair, has to go. A new Wilson Poll is done, with the questions handed out to ALL the pilots in advance so everyone can have their answers prepared. The NC and the BOD is to follow the Wilson Polling data TO THE LETTER. Period.

2nd: MEMRAT. I know, I've pushed this before, but it's more important now than ever. NO change in current book can occur without putting it to a FULL VOTE. No changes in scope, wages, scheduling items, NOTHING. Lock their hands and require a full vote for every change to the Agreement. Sorry, just don't trust you anymore.

We need to change the current book just enough to close the loopholes they've been using to hose us and obtain solid middle-of-the-pack compensation, not one of the "bottom 3".

Yeah, it's going to take some tough negotiating. Yeah, we'll probably end up in a traditional picket and request for self-help. The Wilson Polling data indicated, according to AP in the last 'National', that enough of us support that to make it happen. It's unfortunate, but it's come to that...

How committed are you?

It's funny, every time you make a tantrum-like post like this, I almost (I said almost) want to vote "yes", just to spite you.

It's negotiations, remember? Not "Gimme it cause I want it".

 

[Lear70]

It's funny, every time you make a tantrum-like post like this, I almost (I said almost) want to vote "yes", just to spite you.

It's negotiations, remember? Not "Gimme it cause I want it".

I keep trying to be polite because in-fighting doesn't do us any good. Instead of attacking ME, why don't you keep your eye on the ball, savvy?

It's negotiations, yes. But, historically, unless an airline is in trouble, a group typically sees increases in most areas.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm not trying to bankrupt the company and I'd like to continue to have a place to work. I'm not interested, however, in giving up concessions when the company is profitable with the way the current agreement works.

Who else, besides FlyFastThinkSlow wants to give concessions to the company in exchange for something else? Because if that's how you go into a negotiating session, you're going to wind up with something like what is being presented to us now.

There's absolutely NO reason not to get current book plus COLA. Who's side are you on, anyway?

 

[180ToTheMarker]

There's absolutely NO reason not to get current book plus COLA. Who's side are you on, anyway?

I agree, I will vote NO on any TA that has ANY consessions in it. Why are we even considering giving consessions to an airline that is making money?
If we give consessions now, when AAI is profitable, what happens when times are tough and AAI is losing money? Vote no guys.

 

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

I keep trying to be polite because in-fighting doesn't do us any good. Instead of attacking ME, why don't you keep your eye on the ball, savvy?

It's negotiations, yes. But, historically, unless an airline is in trouble, a group typically sees increases in most areas.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm not trying to bankrupt the company and I'd like to continue to have a place to work. I'm not interested, however, in giving up concessions when the company is profitable with the way the current agreement works.

Who else, besides FlyFastThinkSlow wants to give concessions to the company in exchange for something else? Because if that's how you go into a negotiating session, you're going to wind up with something like what is being presented to us now.

There's absolutely NO reason not to get current book plus COLA. Who's side are you on, anyway?

I actually agree with MOST of your posting on the subject. The tone of your post above made you sound absolutely inflexible on any issue whatsoever, and I don't think that is the right way to get things done either. It had a Delta/United pre-911 sound to it. I agree that things need to be fixed, but, for example, the reserve rules. They were NEVER meant to be what they currently are, so giving those up in exchange for the other stuff, would make sense to me.

I'm not for concessions, but I'm also not 100% sure this thing is as bad as it's being made out to be. I'm NOT saying it's good, and I'm a no because of scope alone, (plus SAPII/Flica after this last weeked).

You tell me to keep my eye on the ball. I've been saying for many months that this NC, AP, and the NPA BOD has not been working in our interests. All of you defended them. I guess I'm just not nearly as surprised as all of you.:beer:

 

[75M]

One thing that I heard Allen say is that we don't want this merger to go thru without a contract in place. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we do have a contract in place now (it's just ammenable, not revokable). Is the merger/acquistion language that much better that what we have now?

I think this is what he meant, but somebody please correct me if I'm wrong...If the mediator declares that the two sides are at an impass then a thirty day cooling off period begins, at the end of which, the company can impose whatever work rules they like and we are released to "self help".

 

[Lear70]

I actually agree with MOST of your posting on the subject. The tone of your post above made you sound absolutely inflexible on any issue whatsoever, and I don't think that is the right way to get things done either. It had a Delta/United pre-911 sound to it.

There ARE a few things that I AM absolutely inflexible about, but there are a few that have *some* wiggle room. Wasn't trying to say I wanted 80% raises across the board, a 100% increase in retirement, and 16 guaranteed days off for everyone... Just saying that current book plus COLA and some give and take in a few areas *MIGHT* have been passable, but not Quality Of Life CONCESSIONS!

You go into negotiations shooting for the moon; our NC didn't; they went in looking for current book not even plus COLA in some wage brackets. The company, however, DID shoot for the moon, and got most of what they wanted.

There's an *art* to negotiating, and I'm one of the people who believes there should be one pilot on the NC that are there for ADVISEMENT ONLY and we hire professional negotiators, one of which also happen to be attorney.

For example: 2 CA's on 100-hour buyout at $130 an hour (average) is $26,000 a month. 2 professional negotiators billing at $200 an hour each, 8 hours a day, 10 days a month is $32,000 a month. That's $6,000 more for PROFESSIONALS who do this FOR A LIVING.

I agree that things need to be fixed, but, for example, the reserve rules. They were NEVER meant to be what they currently are, so giving those up in exchange for the other stuff, would make sense to me.

The reserve rules are a good point and are one of the FEW areas we have to wiggle a LITTLE bit. However, my thoughts on that are that, in return for a "normal" reserve pay rule, the company has to return EVERY SINGLE thing they've done in manipulating the contract including leg-by-leg block or better pay, etc.

If they want this returned to its original intent, they have to return EVERY OTHER SECTION THEY'VE TWISTED TO ITS ORIGINAL INTENT. We have a very large bargaining chip and need to spend it wisely. Giving up the extension into day off pay, ready reserve after a flight assignment, movable days off, etc are all concessions above and beyond what I'm prepared to vote for.

Many of us will upgrade into a 2-year reserve sit. Not only do I not want to screw my buddies who just hired on or who are upgrading soon, but I also don't want to shoot MYSELF in the foot.

I'm not for concessions, but I'm also not 100% sure this thing is as bad as it's being made out to be. I'm NOT saying it's good, and I'm a no because of scope alone, (plus SAPII/Flica after this last weeked).
Is it as bad as everyone is screaming? Not in the short-term, although it does hose a large % of the pilot group (everyone on reserve, all the new-hires, and ALL the F/O's by leaving their wages firmly in the bottom 3 "major" carriers).

In the long-term, with only 1.5% COLA raises and the average inflation rate in this country hovering in the mid-2% range, you'll take a pay cut every year. We also let Scope out of the bag, come up with a sub-100 seat pay scale that's less than anyone else operating them except for regionals and lower than some of those, too. We also go into our next negotiating session firmly in the middle of a down-swing in the aviation industry with the history of giving concessions in our last contract. Not a good place to be.

You tell me to keep my eye on the ball. I've been saying for many months that this NC, AP, and the NPA BOD has not been working in our interests. All of you defended them. I guess I'm just not nearly as surprised as all of you.:beer:

I don't recall defending anyone, except the M&A guys working on the MEH integration, but a lot of people did, and now they're eating their words.

I don't think throwing it in their face helps much, either; those guys are having a harder time of it than anyone because they trusted a group of guys and feel like they were betrayed. That's a hard pill to swallow, and I think a lot of guys are doing a pretty good job holding their anger in check and just promising to vote NO.

I'm trying not to make it personal also and just "Rock the NO vote"! :beer:

 

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

I don't think throwing it in their face helps much, either; those guys are having a harder time of it than anyone because they trusted a group of guys and feel like they were betrayed. That's a hard pill to swallow, and I think a lot of guys are doing a pretty good job holding their anger in check and just promising to vote NO.

I'm trying not to make it personal also and just "Rock the NO vote"! :beer:

I'm not trying to throw anything in anyone's face. I'm really not. Like I said, I guess I'm just not surprised. SH screwed up the last neg. Why was there not a revolution to have him thrown out of this one??

Getting a no vote should not be too hard. I just hope the people that present the no side can keep away from emotion, and explains in facts and figures why not to vote for this.

 

[Lear70]

I think this is what he meant, but somebody please correct me if I'm wrong...If the mediator declares that the two sides are at an impass then a thirty day cooling off period begins, at the end of which, the company can impose whatever work rules they like and we are released to "self help".

What Allen was trying to get to was that, under the current language, the company doesn't HAVE to merge the pilot groups at all, which is COMPLETELY untrue. He's completely ignoring the AWA/UAir precedent (more later).

Section 1.E. Merger Protection:

In the event of a merger between the Company and another Air Carrier, where the surviving air carrier decides to integrate the pre-merger operations, the following procedures will apply:

What Allen is trying to sell you is that, under the current CBA, the company doesn't HAVE to merge them at all if they so choose. Untrue. More on this later.

Also, you'll hear a lot about "We could have the Midwest contract imposed on us". Untrue. Read the bold section again: "the SURVIVING air carrier". Unless they want to start calling us Midwest, move corporate ops to MKE, and put Hoeksema in the driver's seat, the company is going to have a hard time proving that AirTran isn't the surviving air carrier.

They CANNOT impose the Midwest contract on us. Period.

The 2nd thing you mentioned is being able to seek "self-help". This is precluded by sub-section (c) in the same section.

Section 1.E(c)

Discussion related to any merger shall not be pursuant to Section 6 of the RLA and, reaching an agreement with the Association shall not be a prerequisite for closing, or any other aspect of the transaction, or operations pursuant to the transaction.

Plain English:

Point 1. No release into self-help can come from a failure to reach an agreement with the company. More on this later

Point 2. The company doesn't have to have an integration solution in place in order to finalize the Midwest deal or even start operating them as AirTran.

Here's what will happen if the deal goes through:

Section E.1.(a) - The company will provide for the integration of the two pilot groups in a fair and equitable manner, including, where applicable, agreement through collective bargaining between the Air Carrier (Midwest) and the representative or representatives of the pilot groups (both airlines) involved.

We work it out through our M&A committee and the company has the right to veto or sign off on it. The current word coming from the committee is that as long as it doesn't pose a huge increase in training costs, the company doesn't really care as long as the airplanes keep flying.

If we can't agree, it goes to binding arbitration per Allegheny-Mohawk:

Section E.1.(b) In the event of a failure to agree pursuant to paragraph (a) above, the dispute may be resolved in accordance with Section 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk Labor Protective Provisions, except that the integration of the seniority lists of the respective pilot groups may be governed by Association merger policy IF both pre-transaction pilot groups are represented by the Association.

So, since both groups are, pre-merger, NOT represented by the NPA, seniority as well as everything else goes to Arbitration.

Notes: These are important:

1. Allegheny-Mohawk REQUIRES that two groups cannot be maintained separately for operational purposes, so the company MUST combine them one way or the other, either through Arbitration or mutual agreement, but they WILL be merged.

2. And this one is the REAL kicker and why you should not be worried about our current merger language, or lack thereof, in the current CBA: the ONLY way the company can keep the two operations separate is NOT to combine them under one airline name.

In the AWA/UAir merger, they initially proposed just that, and the Feds came down on them like a hammer and said "No company can run two operating certificates under one name. Pick one and merge them." Period.

The NPA is touting that the new CBA requires the company to integrate the operations within 18 months (that's the number I'm getting), including integration of seniority lists. Why did they give up negotiating capital for this since the Federal Government requires it anyway? It's a useless addition to the contract.

3. IF YOU GET NOTHING OUT OF THIS LONG POST (sorry), TAKE THIS WITH YOU:

THE NEW LANGUAGE DOES NOT BIND THE HOLDING COMPANY.

Who do you think is buying Midwest? AirTran Airways? Nope. The Holding company is doing it all. The question was posed if the side letter for scope binding holdings covers this merger policy as well. The answer was side-stepped and repeated requests for clarification have met with silence.

The new language doesn't help us if the company wants to side-step it, because we don't have anything that binds the holding company which is the entity actually making this transaction. Therefore there are ZERO improvements in Merger language that we don't already have or that we can legally bind the company with.

Sorry so long-winded.

 

[CitationLover]

single carrier petition (MAG precedent with the holding company shifting new flying to another held airline).

 

[Ty Webb]

Lear, I told AP during the first election that we need to have professional negotiators, who are steered by the Negotiating Committee, who are flying the line under the contract, and getting feedback from their fellow pilots.

Pay them a salary, and give them bonuses based upon reaching certain objectives.

Instead, we get to pay for Airline Captains to learn how to be negotiators, and with varied results, as we see here.


.

 

[Just thinking]

Items for openers for new negotiations:
Language in current contract that has resulted in grievances for the past four years.... if they have not cleaned that language they have failed the pilot group. Language requiring the company to use FLICA as it is designed to be used...not the distorted mess that they have made it into. COLA and "reasonable" raises for FO's and Captain's alike. 12 year pay chart only. Senior Captains' get COLA each year past 12. (which is what the new TA has) Current FO rates for new hires. True SCOPE language tied to Air Tran HOLDINGS. Only area that I could see that would be conceded would be the reserve soft time pay.... but certainly NOT at the expense of quality of life to be at the whim and fancy of the schedulers (75 hours but (3) three hard days off with three flexible???? Guarantee to finish last day of scheduled reserve by 2:00pm). Reserves will lose a lot of earning potential with the proposed language in this TA. Four hour guarantee....(period)..... Door close time (period)... the dwell time will do nothing but hurt you on pay whether you are early or late... On time is predicated by wheel movement... Check your ACARS ...at best you can do is get a push within one minute of door closure.
Nobody ever expected the NC to go into the negotiations and make a killing and cripple the company. Expectations were a bump in pay and cleaning of language. Heard all the bravado from the union mouthpieces in regards to pilot group and their fortitude. Now is the time to let them hear us in unison with a resounding NO vote and put them back to work. There are enough pilots that have the knowledge and experience to see through the BS curtains that they are putting up. We must gather this experience and use it to ensure that we get what we deserve since the BOD and NC won't. Next round of negotiations WILL be conducted by professionals with pilot advisory gourp to assist. We the pilot group will ensure that this does not happen again. We are professionals and we should be represented by professionals.

 

[BFL370]

Just Thinking,
Your first half is great. You have a good pulse of the problems, but unless you get elected to a position, you need to bring presure to the BoD. That is done with constructive ideas. Bring those up and move forward, Im sure not all the BoD is pleased with the direction of this TA. I was told the first 3+ internal votes were all NO! With a lot of talking arm twisting we then got this tenative TA, remember a final vote has not been made yet by those guys.You should find a supporter in/for your ideas at the BoD level.

 

[Fly-By-Cable]

All AP and BoD are doing by promoting this TA is disservice to the next NC and the pilot group in general.
They will swing a NO vote from 90 to 65%. So that next time around company simply has to satisfy 15 more percent and this thing will pass.

Recall!