AirTran Contract issues

[717capt]

You voted that way because you are stupid. Dont compare other peoples concessionary contract to what you hope in the future. Its called raising the bar. I have many friends over at Airtran and am happy to see it get voted down. You need to have your hands tide behind your back, then get pitched forward till your face is sitting in a mud puddle, then have someone put a cinder block on the back of your head so that you cant move. How about that for an intellectual mind inspiring post? Gosh...now where did that kitten go....

And you responding to his or anyone elses post in that manner makes you what a fuking genuis? Tell you what man, why don't you worry about your airline and let us worry about ours. And by the way you want to preach raising the bar. Lets see. Over the last 5 or so years. US - concessions, DL - concessions, NW - concessions, CO - concessions, UA - concessions. etc.. etc... etc... Make sure you make your feelings known to those guys as well and use your cinder block theory. Calm down man. The man voted yes. You know what? I did too. So did 40% of the pilots that voted on it. Every one has their reasons for voting how they feel. You sound like you are actually loosing sleep over it. Are you that fuked up? Get over it and get over yourself. Worry about your own backyard. From the buddies that I have at CO including a neighbor who is a senior Capt. check airman at EWR, the furlogh word has been floating around due to the age 65 thing. Good luck, hope you aren't junior.

 

[717capt]

i wouldn't use TA2 as toilet paper! And I'm a 10 year guy BTW.

I couldn't vote no fast enough.

rv, TA2 was put out with a recommendation to ratify, not neutral. Remember this, you're voting on an entire document not just the sections that benefit an 8yr capt. Do you SAP? You do realize SAP1 had coverage limits, right? That makes it as useless as SAP2 is now.

The pay and work rules were lacking in every way. The signing bonus was an insult. The language was weak and could easily be reinterpreted by the company or an arbitrator. Scope concessions, door closed, grievance, cancellation pay, trip pick up while on vacation, and mid seniority capt pay rates equal to fo rates of 10 years ago. Tell me again how this TA was acceptable?

No thanks.

Did you actually read it or just go with the endless dribble and synopsis that was practically jammed down everyones throats. And that synopsis was not all that acurate btw. Sorry man I just didn't see it the same way you did and I'm a 10 year guy as well. This TA may not have been acceptable to you but it was ok for almost half the pilot group. 2 types of guys I have been running into over the last few months. Those that say they should have voted yes and those that say they should have actually read it. Don't sweat it though, we forgive you for voting no. Just hope we are all not kicking ourselves in the head about 1 year from now.

 

[Lear70]

...

Nevermind... useless debate.

Enough guys got it to make sure it died, that's all that matters.

 

[717capt]

...

Nevermind... useless debate.

Enough guys got it to make sure it died, that's all that matters.

Yup I agree, let the debate die... lets move on to more pressing sh!t.

 

[PCL_128]

Dang it, Lear, that was a good post!

 

[Lear70]

Dang it, Lear, that was a good post!

Sometimes you just gotta realize you're beating your head against a brick wall and move on to those who actually are open to discussion.

He's already made up his mind. That's fine, he's entitled to his opinion, just like everyone else.

I'll save my breath for the next battle... :beer:

 

[-9Capt]

Did you actually read it or just go with the endless dribble and synopsis that was practically jammed down everyones throats. And that synopsis was not all that acurate btw.

Did I read it? Are you kidding me?
Yeah, I read it, repeatedly and with a fine tooth comb, side by side with the current contract. It sucked and 62% of the pilot group agrees with me.

There were so many hidden gotchas in that TA and the only way you'd ever find them is if you already understood the current contract, all the side letters and LOA's. Every single lost arbitration and concessionary settlement (Urping, reassignment pay, OJI pay, middle seat on DH) was written into the TA and nothing we won at arbitration was kept, like the current reserve pay.

I have yet to have a single yes voter tell me they actually liked it. Without exception each person has told me they thought it "wasn't that bad", or "it's time to move on", which goes to prove the company's delay tactics worked, at least on 38% of us.

I guess reasonable people can disagree over what's reasonable.

 

[Murphy]

Did you actually read it or just go with the endless dribble and synopsis that was practically jammed down everyones throats. And that synopsis was not all that acurate btw. Sorry man I just didn't see it the same way you did and I'm a 10 year guy as well. This TA may not have been acceptable to you but it was ok for almost half the pilot group. 2 types of guys I have been running into over the last few months. Those that say they should have voted yes and those that say they should have actually read it. Don't sweat it though, we forgive you for voting no. Just hope we are all not kicking ourselves in the head about 1 year from now.

-9Capt knows more about the current contract then probably anyone on the property. I highly respect him for the time he volunteers in his free time to help us line pilots. Because of that insight into the current contract, he more than anyone knows that TA1 and TA2 were not worthy of a YES vote.

Most people should have stopped at Scope in TA2 and voted no. That's where I stopped. 86 seat RJs. Let me see. A pilot of an 86 seat RJ requires the same skills as a pilot of a widebody yet because of the economics a RJ capt will make 60-70 bucks an hour. Give me a break. NetJets has finally gotten it with their new contract. A pilot needs a required requisite skill level, regardless of aircraft type, and will be paid accordingly.

 

[BigMeat]

And you responding to his or anyone elses post in that manner makes you what a fuking genuis? Tell you what man, why don't you worry about your airline and let us worry about ours. And by the way you want to preach raising the bar. Lets see. Over the last 5 or so years. US - concessions, DL - concessions, NW - concessions, CO - concessions, UA - concessions. etc.. etc... etc... Make sure you make your feelings known to those guys as well and use your cinder block theory. Calm down man. The man voted yes. You know what? I did too. So did 40% of the pilots that voted on it. Every one has their reasons for voting how they feel. You sound like you are actually loosing sleep over it. Are you that fuked up? Get over it and get over yourself. Worry about your own backyard. From the buddies that I have at CO including a neighbor who is a senior Capt. check airman at EWR, the furlogh word has been floating around due to the age 65 thing. Good luck, hope you aren't junior.

Hey sunshine! Furlough no. Still hiring another 250 or more this year even with 65. Its not about which airline we are from. We do not operate in a vacuum. Everyone everywhere needs to start getting back at least what we had. Your TA was woefully inadequate. If you dont think that I am preaching in my own house then you obviously dont know me. You guys have some momentum so keep it up even just to make it slightly better. Look at your health insurance premiums over there lately? I pay 55 dollars a month for a single guy with pretty good coverage. Please dont compare us in a concessionary contract with your future contract. We will be raising the bar, keeping scope, and improving our work rules. We are already in negotiations. You do the same. Voting yes was stupid for the equipement you fly. Shame on you. I hope that your peers know that you were going to sell them down the river. You know what? You wanna know what I hope? I hope that you wake up in your hotel room to the smell of another mans cologne after you having been drinking all night. You realize what is happening when you see him come out of the bathroom buck naked but you are too drunk to scream for help before he goes for round two! Thats what I hope. Keep up the fight over there guys I have many many friends there and they are all working toward a better future for them and there families!

 

[Frequency]

FO Pay and Scope or Im voting NO again. Period.

...and Ill tell my captain whatever he wants to hear just to avoid listening to his preaching for 4 days. But he will never sway my vote.

 

[Lear70]

FO Pay and Scope or Im voting NO again. Period.

...and Ill tell my captain whatever he wants to hear just to avoid listening to his preaching for 4 days. But he will never sway my vote.

I would imagine that you're NOT in the minority...

Most F/O's are sensitive to CRM issues and don't want to get in a p*ssing match in the cockpit (found myself in this position once or twice during the "Vote NO" campaign).

The fun part is when you're helping lead out in a "Vote NO" campaign and you end up with one of "those" guys ("You're ruining my pay increase") and they know who you are. Instant cockpit silence for 2 or 3 days.

I do have to say that the majority of CA's I flew with were very cool about it. Either they agreed with me, or listened (and several changed their votes) or simply "agreed to disagree" and went for beers later. It's their choice, and as a human being I have to respect their right to make that choice, even if I disagree with it.

It's a divisive and volatile issue, just hope everyone can all keep their eye on the ball like you are! :beer:

 

[another cfii]

These days I don't even bother to bring up the TA subject, because I knew if i upset somebody on the left seat, i'll be stuck with him/her for the next 4 days, so usually i leave it until the very last day! It is almost as sensitive as to discuss either to vote for Hillary or not!

 

[PanPan]

FO Pay and Scope or Im voting NO again. Period.

FO pay and scope are very important, but please don't totally focus on just a few items. I have heard too many people focusing on only a couple of sections, and very very few focusing on the single most important part of the contract. LANGUAGE LANGUAGE LANGUAGE. I wouldn't care if the FO's pay goes to 90% of captains and "AirTran" flying is done by "AirTran" pilots. If the language is so weak that you have to ask 'whats this really mean' then none of it matters. Once you get language that binds BOTH parties, then you can evaluate what the contract really says. And in evaluating, please remember that the contract has many sections that must all be weighed together as a hole. If the scope is 'perfect' but FO pay is a little short of your goal, will you weigh the fact that maybe retirement is a little higher and medical costs go down, or will you just vote no? We all need to have priorities, but if there is absolutely no flexibility in those priorities then we are no better than those sitting across the table or those who don't inform themselves and vote.

The other thing thats been pissing me off lately is how so many of you have resorted to school yard debates on the subject. 'You threw the FO's under the bus.' 'Did you even read the whole TA?' 'Your an ass.' 'Your a dick weed.' Maybe you could say 'I voted no because of X,Y, and Z.' And someone else could respond 'I understand X,Y, and Z but feel that Q,R and S make up for that and yada, yada, yada' That might actually be helpful to the process.

 

[RIDETHELIGHTING]

Scope is everything. Pay well and I can live a little better. I love the senior CA that voted for the recall, but then voted for the TA2. Yea that makes sense. Also I made $25,000 a year as FO, and I walk up hill both ways with no shoes. Well I guess you should of done some research before you applied.

 

[Lear70]

I wouldn't care if the FO's pay goes to 90% of captains and "AirTran" flying is done by "AirTran" pilots. If the language is so weak that you have to ask 'whats this really mean' then none of it matters.

BINGO!

Put it another way. If you sit 5 people down with the new language and all of them come up with different answers for what it means and there aren't 3 or 4 "Scenarios" in the Q&A's written into the contract that spell it out, you just opened yourself to have that entire section reinterpreted by an arbitrator.

The language has to be CLEAR, CONCISE, and leave NO room for "creative interpretation".

And in evaluating, please remember that the contract has many sections that must all be weighed together as a hole. If the scope is 'perfect' but FO pay is a little short of your goal, will you weigh the fact that maybe retirement is a little higher and medical costs go down, or will you just vote no?

That's very well-said.

Scope is a no-brainer. Unless it's at least current book or better, it should be a NO vote for anyone. Period. Won't help you to have the best 717 wages in the industry if you end up flying an E-195 for 60% of that 3 or 4 years from now, will it?

Secondly, I don't care HOW they get the wages up by AT LEAST COLA, as long as it's REAL MONEY. Not a 1% increase in the B fund that I'm not vested in for 4 or 5 more years and can't see until retirement (although any increase in retirement helps), I'm talking about the ability to live as an F/O on a decent wage with a family of 4.

If the F/O rates only went up by 5% but guarantee went to 90 hours, then sure, since I flew 80 hours on average per month with 16 days off, that would be another 17.5% TOTAL raise above my existing paychecks month-to-month.

You can split the pie, as long as the pie is COLA or better; makes no difference to me. As far as trading wages today for retirement, it would have to be a SIGNIFICANT tradeoff to gamble an entire career on for the loss of short-term comfort for my family.

For instance, 1-2% extra into my B fund that I can't touch, can't take with me if I leave for another airline in the next 3-4 years (and many are considering it), and doesn't offset the loss of COLA, even with compounding, is not a fair tradeoff. DOUBLE my B-fund to 20% or so, and we'll start having a discussion... Remember, COLA is now coming up on a 12%+ raise over current book (4 years from the amendable date). A 5% raise still leaves 7% on the table, so doubling our B fund isn't that big of a stretch.

A *LOT* of F/O's are looking at it the same way, since it's very obvious that upgrades just jumped into the 7+ year range instead of 3.

The other thing thats been pissing me off lately is how so many of you have resorted to school yard debates on the subject. 'You threw the FO's under the bus.' 'Did you even read the whole TA?' 'Your an ass.' 'Your a dick weed.' Maybe you could say 'I voted no because of X,Y, and Z.' And someone else could respond 'I understand X,Y, and Z but feel that Q,R and S make up for that and yada, yada, yada' That might actually be helpful to the process.

Can't argue with that. Well-said. :beer:

 

[Secret Squirrel]

And in evaluating, please remember that the contract has many sections that must all be weighed together as a hole.

Ha, Ha, You said HOLE!!! But probably more accurate then the correct spelling.

 

[PanPan]

sorrry, howl

is that betre

 

[71driver]

Language, Language,Language I agree Pan Pan I told RD and MS that Major Airline union's contracts are about three times as thick as ours (to keep it simple) RD response well they have been around for 75 years I said I know but this TA doesn't even make our book any thicker (read no improvement to our lnaguage). We desperately need this!!!

Back in May of 2005 or 2006 you can read an article in the AJC that quotes AP as saying what the union wants "cost of living pay raise, better contract language" Well obviously they forgot about the language.

Will MB get us something better Personnelly I don't think they are going to take us seriously until we picket, they are just taunting us with these ridiculas TA's, oh and all while this is happening guys that are CA are flying right seat, answering their phone on their days off, waiving the contract and then they are wondering why mngmt isn't trying harder to get us a contract, well if my employees we going above and beyond and I was mgngmt I wouldn't be in a hurry either.
I have been with 6 121 carriers (not by choice) and Airtran's Pilot group sticks out like a red headed step child seriously!! I don't know if its the Scab pilot's that taught all the other pilot's how to behave, or if it is the guys that paid for there job at Value jet, what was it 20 some thousand dollars for a type in a DC-9, or if it is the wet behind the ear commutor boys that think they are on Mount Everest they have finally made it, to you I say there is a lot of work to be done on quality of life for the majority of us (thank god) to make this place Southwest Like/Major Airline like, that is why we are losing an avg of 10 per month.

Don't sell out hold the line we are not asking for much believe me the way the company acts you would think we were asking for a 50% pay raise with company cars for all...give me a break!!

 

[Lear70]

Back in May of 2005 or 2006 you can read an article in the AJC that quotes AP as saying what the union wants "cost of living pay raise, better contract language" Well obviously they forgot about the language.

Not to mention COLA.

The T.A. rates weren't even CLOSE to what inflation has averaged the last 3 years in most seniority brackets.

 

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

..... that is why we are losing an avg of 10 per month.

No, we aren't.

To put a little perspective on things though (if my math is close to correct), if we kept the exact same contract, except gave every single pilot on the property a flat $10/hr pay raise, it would add about $0.50-$0.60 per ticket price based on an average 70% load factor.