AirTran Contract issues

[twepilot]

dude, 8 years is about in the middle of the pack. I'm literally half way up the list on the 717. Your attitude is ostricizing half our group. If you knew me at all you would know that I'm not one of the "all for me" guys that you assume I am simply because of my relative seniority. I voted yes on TA 2 because of the environment down the road in the headlights. I felt that ta2 met many of my expectations and I voted for it. You may have voted no for it because it didn't meet your expectations. That is your right. As I have a right to vote yes for it. If you have an issue with me or anyone else voting one way or another I suggest that the problem lies in your lap not mine.

RV

 

[717capt]

twe:

Don't get drawn into a debate bud where the final outcome will have no impact one way or the other. It's done and overwith. I voted yes for TA2 as well. My reasoning was exactly the same as yours. I am senior to you by about 1 year and Lear is absoluetly correct, It would have benefited me, you and anyone else with five years of seniority or higher greatly. You are also absolutely correct in your statement about meeting expectations. If it met them, then vote yes if it didn't then vote no and take your chances. What if we negitiate TA3 and it turns out to be the same or worse than TA2. Do you think now it will get ratified? If it does, kinda makes the recalls pointless. Deep huh?

 

[twepilot]

it would be interesting to see how a vote would come out on ta2 now.

RV

 

[Britpilot]

it would be interesting to see how a vote would come out on ta2 now.

RV

It would still get a "No" from me.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

twe:

Don't get drawn into a debate bud where the final outcome will have no impact one way or the other. It's done and overwith. I voted yes for TA2 as well. My reasoning was exactly the same as yours. I am senior to you by about 1 year and Lear is absoluetly correct, It would have benefited me, you and anyone else with five years of seniority or higher greatly. You are also absolutely correct in your statement about meeting expectations. If it met them, then vote yes if it didn't then vote no and take your chances. What if we negitiate TA3 and it turns out to be the same or worse than TA2. Do you think now it will get ratified? If it does, kinda makes the recalls pointless. Deep huh?

The only expectations you had were pay rates? Because that is the only thing that improved, and not even by cost of living. Plus it created an 18 year pay scale. Now add all the negatives of the TA and your expectations must have been really low or your view of the next year negotiating environment are very bleak.

 

[Frequency]

I would still vote NO on TA2 and if it takes 2 years to negotiate again and we wind up back at TA2 I will vote NO again and so would most of the people I know.

 

[maxblast72]

I think it would be a closer vote now. Our stock as well as most other airline stocks are down 20-30% since we voted down TA2. Most airlines earnings projections for 4th Qtr 2007 and entire 2008 have dropped as well.

With housing prices dropping, foreclosures rising, the and amount of credit card deliquencies increasing, our economy might be headed for a recession led by reduced consumer spending. Who knows how many more ticket price increases the already strapped American consumer can swallow before load factors start to decrease?

That being said, Airtran typically does OK during economic downturn for a couple reasons. One, the price of oil ususally drops during downturn due to reduced demand for oil worldwide. Two, during downturns, our biggest competitors on the east coast usually drastically reduce overlapping capacity which helps us tremendously.

I think in the current environment, shifting a little bit of the senior guys pay increases (still giving COLA to senior guys) to our First Officer's pay would cause TA3 to pass relatively easy (along with some more black and white workrules).

 

[twepilot]

excellent post blast!

RV

 

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

TA2 would have been a yes for me if scope and merger language had been different.

 

[Lear70]

TA2 would have been a yes for me if scope and merger language had been different.

If they had fixed that, it likely would have passed, even with the crappy reserve rules and not-even-COLA pay raises.

Reason: The junior half of the seniority list have almost ALL come from regionals who were whipsawed to death against both each other *AND* their mainline parent/affiliate. There is no way those pilots are going to put themselves back in that same boat.

I can't tell you specifics of what was said in D.C. and by whom, but the subject *DID* come up and their response was 100% of the reason I beat this horse so hard during the "NO-TA" campaign. It's not some "black helicopter" conspiracy, it's a real threat, direct from senior management's mouth.

Take that for what it's worth... I'll probably get a phone call again for posting this about how I'm not helping myself get my job back, but it's important for everyone to understand what's at stake, not to mention it doesn't affect the grievance arbitration (except to make the company that much more adamant that they don't want me back). All they have to do is play nice (and fair), and I'd shut up.

p.s. Excellent post Max, your analytical skills are right on the money.

TWE, I'm not trying to impugn your character or dispariage you, I'm simply trying to get guys to realize that it's not *JUST* what's best for you. Solidarity requires everyone to pull for everyone. That means, even if you'd be OK with it because you aren't that affected, you should have voted NO to support the junior pilots who were. THAT is what solidarity is.

NO ONE should get shafted for the betterment of another seniority group. Even new-hires who aren't on property yet.

Incidentally, 8 years isn't "halfway up the list". One of the other posters in this thread is "halfway up the list". He's on reserve as a CA and has about 4 years' seniority. 8 years is in the top 1/3 of the list, although you might be halfway up the 717 CA seniority list, if that's what you were referring to.

 

[MINIME]

Guys! Sorry to mingle in your party. But, from what I saw on this board posted as your proposed CA rates, they didn't even come close to CAL's concessionary rates that are now in place. Nor to DAL's for similar size equipment and we're not even gonna touch SWA.

So considering all the workrules and the meagar payraises that were proposed to a small group in your company, how's that a TA that's worth voting for? How are you maintaining or even raising the bar for your fellow aviators that will also be in negotiations in the near future?

 

[Eagle757shark]

I just hope we get back to what we voted down... Personally I don't see it happening inside of 2 years from now.

RV

I would like to say thanks for voting. No matter how you voted, it is important that everyone votes. There were too many pilots that decided not to vote and that is tragic. As airline pilots we have a huge responsibility and must make informed decisions. It is disturbing when folks with that kind of responsibility can't make a decision and at least vote.

I don't see negotiations going on for 2 years. AirTran is in a very interesting position and is at a turning point going forward. There is no secret that growth opportunities are limited out of Atlanta. The key to keeping cost down is through some growth and not skrinking to profitability. With oil high as it is, I doubt you will see increased point to point on the east coast, historically generating lower yields. Which means a merger is probable coming in 2008 or 2009!

Now looking at these TAs. A company this size cannot afford to give away ANY SCOPE! Section 4 and Section 5 need to be clear and not vague. A contract should be clear in the language, fix it before presenting it. Do not bring us a bunch of assumptions. Take the time to clarify during negotiations and fix any questions that may be had. Most of the pilots here ask that and anything short of that is selling this professional group short. I too want a pay raise, but I will not sacrifice my future in Scope and clear language for a few extra dollars in hourly pay rates. When we do receive a new TA, present the whole TA and don't tease me with pay rates without allowing me to see the whole contract.

Now as far as the economy, yes it is a buyers market and the lending institutions are fixing themselves. (We are getting back to the basics) But remember, 2008 is an ELECTION YEAR! As we get closer to the national conventions and the election, oil prices will probable begin to fall, and we all know why. 2008 will see some ups and downs with the economy, but that is no excuse to sell yourself short on a fair collective bargaining agreement.

 

[twepilot]

you talk about unity and solidarity, yet basically condemn a person for being, in your eyes, senior and making a decision that benefits not only himself but the majority.

Voting No on a TA for someone that isn't even on the property???WTF are you thinking? First year pay sucks. period no matter where you may work. If a person has an issue with new-hire pay they should not apply to be employed there. When mgmnt has trouble attracting/retaining people that playing field will even out.

Honestly, I'm glad to have good conversation with anyone about anything. The thing that really gets me riled up is the rift that people want to create between this or that group. That is not unity or solidarity. A person must realize that in the end the right decision is whats best for you and your family in the long run.

RV

 

[Lear70]

you talk about unity and solidarity, yet basically condemn a person for being, in your eyes, senior and making a decision that benefits not only himself but the majority.

That's where we differ in opinion.

You, by that statement, believe the T.A. would have benefited the "majority".

I disagree wholeheartedly, as did the majority of our pilots. So, given that the majority believe this was NOT of benefit to them, how can you say that it "benefits... the majority"??!!

Voting No on a TA for someone that isn't even on the property???WTF are you thinking?

I'm thinking of all our pilots hired after D.O.S. who come here and have an even HARDER time paying their bills. You have to fly with those people; telling them you voted Yes to a pay cut for them their first year is a hell of a way to start a trip.

If WE don't stick up for them, NO ONE WILL!!

First year pay sucks. period no matter where you may work. If a person has an issue with new-hire pay they should not apply to be employed there. When mgmnt has trouble attracting/retaining people that playing field will even out.

You and I both know that will NEVER happen. The playing field won't even out, management will lower hiring requirements first. Lower the PIC turbine down to 500 or even eliminate it completely since they'll be F/O's for 7+ years. Or get rid of the Part 121 requirement and open the field for the thousands of charter guys with Lear / Citation command to jump in.

What you're doing is called "rationalizing" a bad decision. It usually leads to an incident or accident in a cockpit, so why do pilots do it in contract decision?

Honestly, I'm glad to have good conversation with anyone about anything. The thing that really gets me riled up is the rift that people want to create between this or that group. That is not unity or solidarity. A person must realize that in the end the right decision is whats best for you and your family in the long run.

I'm glad to have a discussion with you about it and, like others said, I'm glad you got informed and voted; too many people didn't.

However, I disagree with you that the ONLY thing that delineates a "right" decision is whether it's right for you and your family. That's a very selfish thought and is, in my opinion, a pervasive attitude that's helping spiral this career right down the toilet.

What happens when that shoe is on the other foot and the junior pilots vote you a pay freeze to bolster the F/O rates and keep the reserve rules in place with good Scope language. It's right for them and their families, so that's the right decision for the majority, right?

The argument has to work both ways to be valid.

 

[atldc9]

You and I both know that will NEVER happen. The playing field won't even out, management will lower hiring requirements first. Lower the PIC turbine down to 500 or even eliminate it completely since they'll be F/O's for 7+ years. Or get rid of the Part 121 requirement and open the field for the thousands of charter guys with Lear / Citation command to jump in.
.

Actually, it already happened here once. Back in 2000, the company couldn't get enough folks to hire and fly, so they raised the pay for first year FO's from a flat 25k annually to 25 an hour and 3 months later to 32 an hour. Shortly thereafter it ended up where it is today.