AirTran Road show Pairings

[BFL370]

Went to the road show today, and CK had the new TA pairings available. Sits still are around but they seems to be shorter. A lot more variations on 2, 3 and 4 day trips. The days with flying under our current 4 hour min duty was VERY small. But the increase in flying per day was VERY serious. 3 days worth around 20 hours and 4 days with 25 to 28 hours wow, some not al. They looked good to me, better than what we have now. The average duty period didnt look that much longer than now. Oh and with a 1:2 the CDO's seemed to pay better that just the 4 hour duty period. Go check it out and decide for yourselves. The documentation was for a full month and not just a straw pole.

 

[T3700]

Nothing in the contract requires the company to use that set up for the pairing generator. If it's not written in the contract, there is no guarantee we will actually see those pairings in real life. If the kind of pairings you saw were as advantageous for the company as for us, why not commit to it in the contract?

 

[j41driver]

Is there any language that requires the company to build lines like that? Nope.

 

[BFL370]

Are we paranoid. Look the numbers and settings are what is in the computer. Those rigs drive the numbers not JT with a evil leer. Your right it is so not in the companies interest to fly you, it so much better to hire more pilots so they can make you sit in the hotel. Go look and ask questions. I have had some history with these things in the past so your fears are unfounded im my opinion. But go look dont just take my word for it.

 

[SLEDNECK]

Went to the road show today, and CK had the new TA pairings available. Sits still are around but they seems to be shorter. A lot more variations on 2, 3 and 4 day trips. The days with flying under our current 4 hour min duty was VERY small. But the increase in flying per day was VERY serious. 3 days worth around 20 hours and 4 days with 25 to 28 hours wow, some not al. They looked good to me, better than what we have now. The average duty period didnt look that much longer than now. Oh and with a 1:2 the CDO's seemed to pay better that just the 4 hour duty period. Go check it out and decide for yourselves. The documentation was for a full month and not just a straw pole.

Remember how well the SAP II LOA went? With this new TA, they have the ability to control not only SAP II, but SAP I as well. So, if we cancelled the LOA because it was a complete nightmare and ultimately making the SAP II process useless, how did it find it's way into the TA? To me this is the best part of our current contract and I can't believe that there's no mention of it, like they're trying to sneak it past us. As an FO, I cannot see ONE single improvement that overrides any, let alone all of what we are going to give up. The worst 3 months I had here in terms of QOL was because of that SAP II BS. You may not have noticed if you were in an airplane that was fat on pilots, but in 717 FO's seat, you couldn't SAP anything.

BFL370, IF their intentions are to make such great schedule, then why not PUT IT IN WRITING? Why not say that 80% of all 3 day trips will be constructed with greater than 20 hours of block or something similiar? What they're telling you doesn't mean anything if it's either not written at all, or just implied. The reserve system couldn't be any worse and the company has to be both laughing their butts off, and praying that we sign this POS. The 2 for 1 is the only thing that could be considered as an improvement, not hardly enough to outweight the cons here.

 

[BFL370]

Guys just go look and ask questions, dont just stick your heads in the sand and scream so you dont have to listen. GO TO THE F_N SHOW, its YOUR JOB use you mind and ask questions if you dont like it say so in person and let the NPA know. This isnt rocket science. Ive seen the pairings and asked the questions, it looks good. So enjoy your current 4 hour sit in BWI while you think how bad it could be to sit RR in and out station, oh wait never mind they would pay you to sit in a hotel and get PD vs sit in your crash pad.

 

[DCitrus9]

I already fly 20hr 3 days and 27hr 4 days under the current contract. What changes suddenly "allow" the great pairings? I would bet it is a change in the pairing machine that has nothing to do with our contract, and that will be changed back as soon as this POS gets voted in.
I already have 8hrs of flying plus a 2-3hr sit within a 12hr duty day, another hour of duty only helps the company with a longer sit somewhere.
The pay cut known as average duty period removes any incentive for the company to build efficient trips. If they intended to build them how you like them, they would have no problem leaving the pay guarantees in place.
The list goes on...
In short, all of these changes are a regression to the previous contract, which had terrible pairings with low pay. Expect 2 days more work to get the same pay.

 

[Ty Webb]

Go check it out and decide for yourselves. The documentation was for a full month and not just a straw pole.

Are you out of your mind? You fell for that dog-and-pony-baloney?

Still believe in the Tooth Fairy? The Easter Bunny hopping up the trail to your house?

Allow me to break it to you gently . . . . this ain't SWA. This is not the type of progressive management that can be counted on to "do the right thing". They can't even be counted on to do the smart thing. What they CAN be counted on is to be wasteful when given wide latitude, and to be deceitful and under-handed.

Vote as you wish, but if you are a 717 pilot, you better hope you can jump to the 737 before you get junior-assigned the 100-seater. Take a gander at those pay rates, because that's the future of this contract.

.

 

[BFL370]

Well my Tybert, get your head out of the Hustler and power down the Media player with the gay porn and understand it is not the 717 guys who could be hosed but you and me, becasue if the 717 is replaced (would take years) you could also see the senior guys would go to the 737 and 717s to Midwest and you and me will be E190 FO's or Capts on reserve. That is just as plausable but possible under this contract and we could do NOTHING about it. That is a fact, but think as you will.

 

[Ty Webb]

There is way too much bad stuff in this contract to even consider it as anything near viable, but you have not articulated a situation whereby a 737 CA can be be displaced from his seat.

Can't be displaced unless there is a reduction. . . . or did Skipper give that away, too? Someone needs to get that fool a new SIDA badge and a fresh PC and show him the way to Concourse C.

 

[RIDETHELIGHTING]

BEL370
Who cares what the pairing do. With what was given up in scope we our not going to fly it anyways. But you must be one of those 10% CA looking for the pay out, and doesnt care who you throw under the bus.

 

[Lear70]

becasue if the 717 is replaced (would take years) you could also see the senior guys would go to the 737 and 717s to Midwest and you and me will be E190 FO's or Capts on reserve. That is just as plausable but possible under this contract and we could do NOTHING about it. That is a fact, but think as you will.

No, those events are NOT plausible, with the exception of you and Ty becoming E-190 CA's.

First, you're buying into the fear mongering about Midwest. It is an ESTABLISHED FACT that we can FORCE the company to combine operations by a single carrier petition once the purchase is complete, here's the precedent:

http://www.nmb.gov/representation/deter2006/33n041.pdf

There's others as well, do a Google search, you'll find them. The only way the company could whipsaw us is to keep Midwest operating separately as a wholly-owned subsidiary NOT under the AirTran name, and the 8K SEC filings prohibit them from doing that.

THERE IS NO IMPROVED MERGER PROTECTION. Period.

Could you be E-190 pilots under the current CBA? Sure. At 717 pay rates. There's no way they can operate the airplane CURRENTLY paying less than that, so who cares, as long as you make the same money? I certainly don't.

Lastly, to address your first post, the pairing generator: take a GOOD, CLOSE LOOK at those pairings. I have. You'll find they have ONE thing in common:

THEY COULD BE CONSTRUCTED USING OUR CURRENT RIGS AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE COMPANY!

That's right, take a good, close look. Only a VERY small percentage of those lines has over a 12 hour duty day, you said it yourself. So why do we need to give all those things up to have trips constructed like this NOW?

The answer: we don't. It's smoke and mirrors. The company doesn't build pairings like this FOR A REASON. Do we know absolutely why that is? No. But to buy into the pairings without a healthy dose of skepticism borders on the inanely ignorant.

Most of us have been on the receiving end of bad reassignments enough to know that, with relaxed constraints, they WILL take advantage of it when necessary.

Incidentally, I flew a 27:43 hour 4-day last week under current rigs that was completely commutable with 14 and 18 hour overnights. I have a 19:20 3-day later this month commutable with 12 and 16 hour overnights. Both of those actually work too hard for me, I prefer 2-3 legs a day with 18-20 hour overnights, as I don't feel like being BURNED OUT when I'm 50. If they want to work us like SWA pilots, they can pay us like SWA pilots.

 

[Ty Webb]

Well my Tybert, get your head out of the Hustler and power down the Media player with the gay porn and understand it is not the 717 guys who could be hosed but you and me

Hmmm . . . . a reference to gay porn, and scare tactics . . . . Noel, is that you?


.

 

[BFL370]

Some how I bet all you guys havnt even gone to the show, do what you will and no Im not a senior guy. Good Luck.

 

[BFL370]

Arent Omni, ATA and World now owned by one holding company, so are Polar and Atlas and none are being combined.

 

[Lear70]

Some how I bet all you guys havnt even gone to the show, do what you will and no Im not a senior guy. Good Luck.

Yes, I have.

Twice.

And they absolutely COULD NOT answer the questions I put to them with other than, "You're right, that's a concession" or "You're right, there's nothing keeping them from doing that."

The only thing they can say is, "We don't *THINK* they'll do that."

Sorry, that's just NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Put it in writing. If you can't, then I'm not interested, as I can't take "we don't think they'll do that" to arbitration during the grievance process.

Incidentally, why are you so closed off to opposing opinions? Why have you made up your mind getting only one side of the story? Why don't you read this, then read the contract again side-by-side with the analysis in this link, then let us know how you answer these issues:

http://home.earthlink.net/~lear70

 

[Jonny Sacko]

Nope, He's not a senior guy, just a management SHILL.

 

[BFL370]

Well I do have some differnt points of vew, but you disagree with me so be it.

 

[Lear70]

Arent Omni, ATA and World now owned by one holding company, so are Polar and Atlas and none are being combined.

They're not being operated under one name for common carriage, that's the link.

If a carrier purchases another company and combines the operation under one name for the purpose of common carriage, then single carrier petitions work, there's about half a dozen precedents in the last 5 years.

AirTran has made way too many public statements and SEC filings saying they intend to do away with the Midwest name and operate everything as AirTran to get away with operating them separately. Lots of federal laws prohibiting a public company from making statements to sneak a purchase through then change later how they intend to operate it.

Citation Lover got me thinking about it, and an ALPA buddy in Herndon who does this for a living put me on this research track with the above results. He's not concerned and neither am I; our merger protections in our current CBA aren't perfect, but they're good enough for the way AAI has set this up with Midwest as a purchase and "merger".

 

[Lear70]

Well I do have some differnt points of vew, but you disagree with me so be it.

And I understand your point of view, the pay rates are actually "decent", not great, weighted heavily towards the top 1/3 of the seniority list, but at least "possibly livable" if they hadn't screwed Scope, Insurance, Work Rules, Reserves, New-Hires, and Retirees...

I appreciate you at least looking at the countering arguments I've presented, and of course, you are always welcome to vote your conscience, it's a free country...

My main point is that current book is better than what is proposed, as it threw too many people under the bus and doesn't have enough protections built in. It's not the end of the company, just the end of this round of negotiations.

Time for round 2. :beer: