I keep hearing that Pay isn't the only issue at stake here, and that's true. Don't get me wrong, having rules is definitely better than not, and a lot of the rules are good, especially for a first contract. However, some of the rules written in to the contract are merely place holders for a future contract. Others are obviously here because management just negotiated better, and the IBT probably had to give them up in order to get our whopping 10% pay raise.
There are many more, but here are a few examples that come to mind:
Sect. 1 - Scope: The crewing ratio = 4 pilots for every 800 hours under management. This doesn't help the pilots in any way that I can tell. Even if you assume that all the aircraft in the fleet are 100% sold and zero charter flying, it's only 4 pilots per aircraft. That isn't even enough to cover normal flying, training, sick time, and vacations. I don't want to force management to carry more crews than what is reasonable, but it sure would be nice for someone other than the most senior pilot to be able to get vacation during the holidays/peak travel.
Sect 24 - Insurance Benefits - No change! In the last few years, they took away the "A" plan and tripled the cost of the others.
Sect. 27 - NRFO Pilot = $1000/mo. The choice of who gets it is up to the chief pilot, ... really? How many of us has he actually flown with? Other than his title, what makes him qualified to make this decision? What will end up happening, is that he'll end up asking the opinion of the PSMs. They are mostly out of touch with most pilots abilities too, so take a guess how they'll make their decision? ... It sounds like the SFO program dressed up and given a different name to me. I have no problem with having the NRFO Pilot clause, but the deciding needs to be objectively defined. If an average line captain can't handle it, and it requires special training then perhaps that should be addressed too.
Sect 28.4(e) - Voluntarily Exceeding Flight and/or Duty Time Limitations ... Really ??? The title says it all, and they shouldn't even be able to ask. This is just a license for management to talk about your "reasonably scheduled" day, and ask if you'll do them a favor and help them out. If you regularly do it, they'll identify you as a good 'ol boy and a good candidate for the SFO, oops, I mean "NRFO Pilot" position. If you don't, they'll try to guilt or pressure you into it. This shouldn't even be in the contract.
Sect. 28.? - We're missing any Circadian Low Agreement. We had a pretty good one in the ops. manual years ago, then they found it limiting, and it changed. Shall we just trust management to do the right thing in the future? This may not be a huge one, bit I say write it down and put it in the contract... even if it is the same crappy limitations we have now.
Sect 29 - 401k matching. Matching percentages are OK, but they don't have to give it to us until they give it to all the company employees. So I guess management can get matching, but until they give it to everyone, including the janitor, they don't have to give it to us! This was something that management recently took away, to make the union give up something else in order to get it back.
Sect 30 - Duration.
As a general rule in a bad economy and/or in first contracts, you negotiate for good work rules. Generally they did OK here, with a few exceptions, a few of which are noted above, although I'm sure there are a few more to add.
General rule #2 - If the resulting pay is crappy, you go for a short duration. Here is where this TA really falls short, and I have a serious disconnect. In fact, this is the straw that breaks the camels back. I might be able to swallow the crappy Pay/401k/Insurance sections, just to have the work rules in writing, if we were voting on a 2 year contract. The problem for me is that this is a 3 year contract with an option for 4th & 5th year extensions at management's sole discretion, without any say by the pilots. There is no way they won't renew the option at these bargain basement rates. Then, management doesn't have to even come to the table for the next negotiations until 6 months prior to the end of the contract period. The next one may go faster, but it probably won't get settled in 6 months, so we would probably have to live with this contract for the next 6+ years. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm just not ready to accept that.
My message to the e-board is:
If you want me to vote for work rules alone, then shorten the duration. If you want to keep a longer duration, then get us better pay ! I won't vote yes on this as it stands now.
