HA pilots reach TA with management

[HAL]

After nearly 3 years of negotiations, a TA is in hand. I'll be interested to see what it contains!

HAL

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/a...s+reaches+tentative+contract+deal+with+pilots

 

[xanderman]

As will I. I hope it drives some additional hiring so I can get out of the pool and dry off!!!!!

 

[HAL]

Latest rumor is another bid for about 30 coming out early next year. Don't know any more details than that though.

HAL

 

[xanderman]

Read a rumor on another site that says pay was increased something on the order of 20%! I find this hard to believe in this economic environment. Any HA pilots care to put that one to rest? What other provisions are worthy of water cooler talk?

 

[FlickerFade]

Read a rumor on another site that says pay was increased something on the order of 20%! I find this hard to believe in this economic environment. Any HA pilots care to put that one to rest? What other provisions are worthy of water cooler talk?

Over the life of the 5 year contract, that's exactly what was expected.

It will be the first pay increases in 10 years at Hawaiian.

 

[Lear70]

That's not surprising:

If it IS correct at 20% (I don't have any insider info) and let's just say there's 6% raises on Date of Signing and 3.5% a year for 4 more years, total 5 year agreement, 20% total, I'd say that's not exactly stellar, not even COLA from when the CBA was amendable. I wouldn't vote for that at AAI.

You need 3% for every year you didn't get a contract raise while you were negotiating and 3% COLA on top of that every year after D.O.S. or you're losing money every year you stay at the same wage, especially the topped-out guys at year 10 or 12 or wherever your scale caps at.

Better be great work rule improvements and/or retirement to boost that number. 10 years without COLA adjustments to wages? That's 36% or thereabouts (when compounded yearly) just to account for inflation!

 

[scoreboardII]

Is the new standard for negotiations a minimum length of 3 plus years?

 

[PCL_128]

That's not surprising:

If it IS correct at 20% (I don't have any insider info) and let's just say there's 6% raises on Date of Signing and 3.5% a year for 4 more years, total 5 year agreement, 20% total, I'd say that's not exactly stellar, not even COLA from when the CBA was amendable. I wouldn't vote for that at AAI.

You need 3% for every year you didn't get a contract raise while you were negotiating and 3% COLA on top of that every year after D.O.S. or you're losing money every year you stay at the same wage, especially the topped-out guys at year 10 or 12 or wherever your scale caps at.

Better be great work rule improvements and/or retirement to boost that number. 10 years without COLA adjustments to wages? That's 36% or thereabouts (when compounded yearly) just to account for inflation!

Have you looked at their current pay rates lately? A 20% raise would put them right in line with the new pattern that has been established by Alaska and JetBlue. The new pattern is right around $180/hr for SNB rates, and WB rates in the $210/hr range by end of contract. You can reasonably demand an extra few percent in the name of pattern bargaining (jacking up the house one corner at a time), but you can't expect the NMB to allow a demand for 36% raises when 20% would put you in range of the established bargaining pattern.

 

[xanderman]

I am sorry. I was not thinking... I saw the new (rumored) rates and thought they were reflecting the new (immediate) rates. I forgot these things get spread out... My bad.

 

[Lear70]

Have you looked at their current pay rates lately? A 20% raise would put them right in line with the new pattern that has been established by Alaska and JetBlue. The new pattern is right around $180/hr for SNB rates, and WB rates in the $210/hr range by end of contract. You can reasonably demand an extra few percent in the name of pattern bargaining (jacking up the house one corner at a time), but you can't expect the NMB to allow a demand for 36% raises when 20% would put you in range of the established bargaining pattern.

Well, part of the problem is that I can't see their pay rates on APC to know where they were starting from or the new rates that are negotiated.

I agree, in general terms, that negotiating industry leading pay scales from a company that isn't making industry leading profits (HAL), would be difficult, but I have to say, in principle, with a profitable company, I would never agree to anything less than COLA rates unless the rate/work rule combination served to increase the wages in the same total amount equal to COLA or better.

I don't really give a rat's WHAT the rest of the industry is doing IF my company was profitable at the pay rates before they became amendable and is still profitable 3, 5, 7, 10 years later and COLA just happens to put those raises above the industry average because the company stalled for so many years. If my company is profitable, they can afford to pay COLA every year at the bare minimum.

The other thing I'm expecting to see from just about everyone bargaining these days with companies that drag things out for half a decade or longer is an AUTOMATIC COLA adjustment every year AFTER the contract becomes amendable. Remove the incentive for the company to stall and we'd start having some serious negotiating leverage.

I remember a time when you thought the same way, amigo...

 

[thor2j]

Have you looked at their current pay rates lately? A 20% raise would put them right in line with the new pattern that has been established by Alaska and JetBlue. The new pattern is right around $180/hr for SNB rates, and WB rates in the $210/hr range by end of contract. You can reasonably demand an extra few percent in the name of pattern bargaining (jacking up the house one corner at a time), but you can't expect the NMB to allow a demand for 36% raises when 20% would put you in range of the established bargaining pattern.

Maybe I missed something but JB max pay is $159/hr and Alaska's is $172.

 

[jmt]

As will I. I hope it drives some additional hiring so I can get out of the pool and dry off!!!!!

I am hoping to get out of the pool too! But not having a current flying job won't help me though...

 

[PCL_128]

I don't really give a rat's WHAT the rest of the industry is doing IF my company was profitable at the pay rates before they became amendable and is still profitable 3, 5, 7, 10 years later and COLA just happens to put those raises above the industry average because the company stalled for so many years. If my company is profitable, they can afford to pay COLA every year at the bare minimum.

I agree that they can afford it. Unfortunately, the NMB looks at industry patterns. This is the same reason why UPS pilots still make a hell of a lot less today than DAL pilots made in 2001. The company could afford just about anything ($1 billion in quarterly profits when the TA came in '06), but the NMB wasn't going to release anyone that was demanding pre-9/11 rates, even at a profitable cargo carrier. We only have as much leverage as the RLA provides.

The other thing I'm expecting to see from just about everyone bargaining these days with companies that drag things out for half a decade or longer is an AUTOMATIC COLA adjustment every year AFTER the contract becomes amendable. Remove the incentive for the company to stall and we'd start having some serious negotiating leverage.

There are pros and cons to this strategy. The pros are obvious, the cons less so. The problem is that COLA adjustments into perpetuity eliminate the sense of urgency on both sides of the bargaining table. The pilots may have lots of smaller items that they want to fix, but they aren't going to get too mad about it as long as their 3% raise keeps coming. The company can go to the investors and banks and tell them that they have a guaranteed pay structure that is increasing at only 3% per year, and they have no risk of a work stoppage because the pilots aren't demanding rapid resolution to contract talks.

I tend to think a middle-of-the-road approach is a better move. Provide a small guaranteed pay raise (1.5%), which mitigates the amount of retro pay that has to be negotiated, but is still low enough to motivate pilots to get a new contract. I'm generally opposed to full COLA past the amendable date unless I think pattern bargaining in the years ahead isn't looking favorable. Right now, the pattern is very positive, and probably will be for the next decade.

Maybe I missed something but JB max pay is $159/hr and Alaska's is $172.

Alaska's reaches $180 after three years (end of the contract duration). JetBlue's rate has to be blended, since they get 150% for all flying over 78 hours per month. Depending on how much a pilot flies, his effective rate can be either lower or higher than $180/hr. Average is probably in the $173/hr range.

 

[MINIME]

PCL,

How close do you think you'll get to SWA rates? That should be your aim, should it not?
If not so close, why do you not support a reasonable merger with SWA? The law provides for one if needed.
What have you got to lose if it's done right for your pilots?

Not trying to attack, just wondering why anyone would not want to be a part of a company that is superior in treating their employees. Keep fighting the good fight...

 

[PCL_128]

How close do you think you'll get to SWA rates? That should be your aim, should it not?

The SWA rates don't fit with the overall industry pattern, because SWA productivity is much higher than every other carrier, plus some other contractual items aren't included, such as a DC pension. Alaska and Hawaiian are much more indicative of where the overall rates are going in the industry, because most airlines aren't going to be able to match SWA productivity.

If not so close, why do you not support a reasonable merger with SWA? The law provides for one if needed.
What have you got to lose if it's done right for your pilots?

Personally, I think we'll be much better off on our own. I think AirTran will see massive growth over the next 10-20 years, and I just don't see the same for SWA. When we get a new contract that fits with the overall industry pattern, combined with the higher growth rate that I think we'll see, I think our pilots will be much better off than getting integrated with SWA, even if the integration is "fair."

 

[MINIME]

The SWA rates don't fit with the overall industry pattern, because SWA productivity is much higher than every other carrier, plus some other contractual items aren't included, such as a DC pension. Alaska and Hawaiian are much more indicative of where the overall rates are going in the industry, because most airlines aren't going to be able to match SWA productivity.



Personally, I think we'll be much better off on our own. I think AirTran will see massive growth over the next 10-20 years, and I just don't see the same for SWA. When we get a new contract that fits with the overall industry pattern, combined with the higher growth rate that I think we'll see, I think our pilots will be much better off than getting integrated with SWA, even if the integration is "fair."

Fair enough.

Well, the proposed rates that HAL is rumored to get should put them higher than ALK right? In fact, it puts them almost at the tail of LUV. So are you going for those new rates atleast?

Also, if LUV comes knocking, the scenerio of "Bird in hand versus potential Bird in hand" may come into play. Your estimation is based on theory not actual proposals of growth I imagine. Even if you do grow, how much will your pilots benefit from it. Will they get a contract that they feel satisfied with?

Reason I say this is because most of your pilots, especially your FOs would get as much as an 80% immidiate raise with LUV. What could AAI do to surpass that? Especially with that style of management.

I realize that my questions are mostly hypothetical. But given the history of your company's management, I couldn't imagine most of your pilots not wanting to team up with LUV. Again, especially your First Officers since their compensation is in severe need of adjustment.

 

[PCL_128]

Well, the proposed rates that HAL is rumored to get should put them higher than ALK right? In fact, it puts them almost at the tail of LUV. So are you going for those new rates atleast?

I believe the HAL rates are going to be very close to the ALA rates on the narrow-bodies.

Will they get a contract that they feel satisfied with?

I think so.

 

[FlickerFade]

Holy thread hijack!!

HA for its size is about the most profitable airline in the US. About $100M when all is said and done for 2009.

Our history, route structure, fleet composition, and bargaining make HA unique. There's also the DC/DB component.

Trying to compare HA with AAI is a stretch, but it's very funny in that you don't have a clue what's in the TA.

 

[Lear70]

Trying to compare HA with AAI is a stretch, but it's very funny in that you don't have a clue what's in the TA.

I find it humorous that you would think comparing HA and AAI is a stretch. SNB flying is SNB flying. It's not like you're flying 747's internationally...

And you'd be surprised what some of the people on this board are privy to... I personally haven't seen a single paragraph of the new T.A., but I'd be surprised if the MEC leadership of every ALPA carrier that flies SNB aircraft hasn't been given a brief on the highlights by now.

Good luck to you. Hope it's a great Agreement.

 

[FlickerFade]

I find it humorous that you would think comparing HA and AAI is a stretch. SNB flying is SNB flying. It's not like you're flying 747's internationally...

And you'd be surprised what some of the people on this board are privy to... I personally haven't seen a single paragraph of the new T.A., but I'd be surprised if the MEC leadership of every ALPA carrier that flies SNB aircraft hasn't been given a brief on the highlights by now.

Good luck to you. Hope it's a great Agreement.

What I found humorous were three things:
- That you were commenting on what you'd accept for a pay rate increase. As if it's that simple and translates between companies.
- That the thread turned into an Airtran pay/contract discussion
- That no matter what your inside info. Outside of a pay rate, there is no way you understand the scope and specifics of the Hawaiian TA.

I hope that it's a good agreement. If there weren't too many "productivity" increases, the pay rates and retirement (I've heard an increase to 19.5% from 17%) is about what we were asking for.

Good luck to everybody.