Feb. PBS Bid Awards - ASA

[asa rat]

Why are we even discussing dual qual? What did I miss?

It think it is a VERY bad idea!!!

THANK YOU!! I tried to plant that idea three pages ago, clearly without success.

 

[701EV]

no dual qual!!!

 

[Nevets]

You are correct about the 6 days of transition. That part of our contract downright sucks. I'm not totally against PBS though although it'll take a lot to convince me.
We had 3 days and that sucked. 6 days would suck exponentially. I'm glad you have an open mind. If your job was on the line, or you get PBS, what would you choose! Because, that will be your decision.

Let me be clear, this job is not my life! I will simply go do something else. I will be just fine.

I don't know about this ASA unprofitable thing, not that it makes a difference when we all make money for the same CEO, BOD, and shareholders. And last time I checked Inc made money and had $800M in the bank.
And they made it how? Making a profit matters. They have $800M in the bank, and they want more. You and I want stand in the way of that happening.

That was a response to someone saying ASA is now unprofitable. Last I checked, Inc makes money. Fact as I already stated is that we make money for one CEO, one BOD, and one set of shareholders. I know how they make a profit, that was not in question. RTFP

As for dual qual, I certainly see that as a strong possibility considering our existing rates. It could be employed in a positive way.
Your existing rates? And can you explain your concept? And just how can it be employed in a positive way?

What I meant is that our compensation on our ERJ is almost what you get on the 900, so any raise on the ERJ would mean an automatic raise on all your aircraft. Therefore I can see a blended rate and that would be more reason for dual qual.

But what if our system is better? Then the majority of your pilots would approve our system. I sincerely dont mind being separate at this point rather than take any concession, but again, that's just me.
We want be separate. We will either be joined together at reasonable costs, or your group will not survive. Given the choice, would you rather have a job with slight adjustments for reasonable costs, or be without a job because you held the line? What pays more? Even a caveman can figure that one out.

Like I said already, I will be fine whatever happens. I will go do something else. My life is not this job. I already took concessions and I rather not do it again, even if it means I lose my job.

Yup and that is why I keep an open mind about it. Will you do the same about our system? As for remaining competitive, once JA and company decide to save money by not operating two separate airlines with two sets of almost everything, then I might consider that argument. Until then, he can go pound sand!
He has the money, leverage and will, if necessary, to crush you like a peanut. He does not need you on unreasonable terms. He will determine the reasonable part and the terms. I have read your agreement! Ours is superior in many ways! We don't want your system, and that is not the choice! The choice is a combined, reasonable agreement, that is cost competitive with Skywest Airlines. Within Inc., that is who your competition is. Create a gulf of disparity, if we even got that far, and "WE" will become the incredible shrinking airline!

He seems to need us more than we do him. He has been the one who constantly has been trying to get into CALs bed. Which part of our agreement have you read? Can you tell me about the phase 1, phase 2, ILIW, SLIW, etc? The choice is pay up or keep us separate. I have absolutely NO PROBLEM whatsoever with being separate. I do not want to come down to the level of Skywest airlines. I want to bring them and you up to ours! My unions job is not to worry about shrinking airlines. That is managements job. If they want to make our airline bigger, they can easily combine us with another airline with over 200 aircraft already to go.

He didn't get what he wanted two years ago. He made many concessions on the second deal.
He got what he wanted 2 years ago. He wanted the $5 million for the failed transaction, an examination of the financials, and a second run at you at a lower cost. All things considered, after a discount of the $5 million gained, and your cash on hand, he bought your Company for about $68 million. ASA, alone, made that much profit the first year we were bought! What concessions did he make? Hahaha

They wanted to operate 3 separate airlines and implement 16% concessions. Now they conceded at least merging us with ASA and having to negotiate a joint contract under section 6. HUGE concessions from what they originally wanted.

They can't do that per the transition and process agreement.

Has it been signed? I guarantee his lawyers are smarter than our lawyers. There will be loopholes. Have you read it? I haven't but having at least a 3rd grade edumocation, I will reserve judgement until I do! Any party can break any contract. It is just a piece of paper, not always having legal standing.

My best example for illustration would be your recent scope and merger language. How did that work out for you? Yeah, I want that contract! Not!

Fair enough, although I think that the failure of that section of our contract had more to do with the resolve of our MEC than the language in the contract.

 

[dojetdriver]

Fair enough, although I think that the failure of that section of our contract had more to do with the lack of resolve of our MEC than the language in the contract.

Fixed it for ya

Like I said already, I will be fine whatever happens. I will go do something else. My life is not this job. I already took concessions and I rather not do it again, even if it means I lose my job.

I can't help but chuckle at this one. Remember when LOA9 was going on, and many (like myself) took the line of thinking you are here? Many that had ALREADY been through the process multiple time in our careers? And I specifically remember you coming down on me pretty hard for it. Does it finally make sense now why we had that point of view?

 

[Nevets]

Fixed it for ya



I can't help but chuckle at this one. Remember when LOA9 was going on, and many (like myself) took the line of thinking you are here? Many that had ALREADY been through the process multiple time in our careers? And I specifically remember you coming down on me pretty hard for it. Does it finally make sense now why we had that point of view?

I understood that you had already taken concessions...at another job. To me that had no bearing on whether we should have taken concessions here, at that time. To me it was never a choice between whether we take concessions or we go BK. To me it was more philosophical. There were no guarantees either way that vote went down. To me it was a debate of do we keep our pay and see what happens or do we take less than a 7% hit and give our management one last chance at making a run at it (of course with some caveats, ie all the letters that went along with that LOA). To me, no side is wrong but I personally thought that we had a better chance by agreeing with the LOA as a whole. But I do think there is an argument you can make that is unprovable that we would have been better off voting it down.

Now go ahead and tell me how I misunderstood what you said or that I didn't get the point.

By the way, thanks for the correction.

 

[dojetdriver]

I understood that you had already taken concessions...at another job. To me that had no bearing on whether we should have taken concessions here, at that time. To me it was never a choice between whether we take concessions or we go BK. To me it was more philosophical. There were no guarantees either way that vote went down. To me it was a debate of do we keep our pay and see what happens or do we take less than a 7% hit and give our management one last chance at making a run at it (of course with some caveats, ie all the letters that went along with that LOA). To me, no side is wrong but I personally thought that we had a better chance by agreeing with the LOA as a whole. But I do think there is an argument you can make that is unprovable that we would have been better off voting it down.

Now go ahead and tell me how I misunderstood what you said or that I didn't get the point.

By the way, thanks for the correction.

All I'm sayin' is, "until you've walked mile in another guys shoes, you may not understand how/why they think the way they do". But if you do, don't give the shoes back, because at least you'll still have something left when it's said and done.

You simply find yourself in the SAME situation that myself (and others) did 2+ years ago. You can make the points to defend your rationale all you want, I can do the same. Point is, I'd rather been out of a job than take ANOTHER pay cut. Just like you now. If you want to dismiss my experience because it "happened at another job", sure, whatever. Sorry, it STILL has bearing on the argument.

You don't always have to disagree with everybody over everything all the time you know.

 

[Nevets]

All I'm sayin' is, "until you've walked mile in another guys shoes, you may not understand how/why they think the way they do". But if you do, don't give the shoes back, because at least you'll still have something left when it's said and done.

You simply find yourself in the SAME situation that myself (and others) did 2+ years ago. You can make the points to defend your rationale all you want, I can do the same. Point is, I'd rather been out of a job than take ANOTHER pay cut. Just like you now. If you want to dismiss my experience because it "happened at another job", sure, whatever. Sorry, it STILL has bearing on the argument.

You don't always have to disagree with everybody over everything all the time you know.

Neither do you my friend. I didn't mean to demean your experience, just that I thought that the emotion of that experience was irrelevant to the facts of the matter at XJT at the time. I actually agree with you though in that having the feeling of rather being out of a job than taking concessions is ok. That was the philosophical difference between you and those like myself that felt like giving the company one last fighting chance was reasonable at the time. And like I said, I don't know that what we chose was the correct path but I stand by my vote. I understand not wanting to take another concession which is why I feel the way I do now. I might feel different about taking a concession now (PBS as it stands now) if we hadnt take them two years ago. Also, if I ever find myself at DAL for example, and the circumstances are such that they ask for concessions there, my experience and emotions of what I went through two years ago would not come into the picture on my decision, only the facts at the time. I do feel that maybe these things shape our philosophy on things and maybe that is what I wasn't understanding.

Your turn to piss.

 

[V1rowt8]

Ok back on subject. PBS. With the ASA PBS, two four days touch the first and last day of vacation, the trips get dropped but what happens to line value? If the dropped trips reduce your line below min guarantee, is ones pay actual vacation week plus flying or min guarantee? At XJT you can fly one trip in a vacation month and get paid min guarantee 75 hrs. The reasoning here is that a pilot should be able to enjoy his or her vacation if the trips get dropped and not be penalized financially. What is the point in getting the trips dropped if you can't enjoy your vacation because of the financial penalty? Any trips picked up on days off during vacation is credited as add pay ( added to min guarantee). A pilot can fly a couple of trips and get over one hundred hrs pay for a month. A pilot that has four weeks of vacation can seriously augment their pay and QOL. Last year many XJT pilots were getting 150 hr month pay on vacation months in the first quarter because of red flag (150% pay for trips picked up on days off) and 12-14 days off. Can PBS do this?

 

[dojetdriver]

Ok back on subject. PBS. With the ASA PBS, two four days touch the first and last day of vacation, the trips get dropped but what happens to line value? If the dropped trips reduce your line below min guarantee, is ones pay actual vacation week plus flying or min guarantee? At XJT you can fly one trip in a vacation month and get paid min guarantee 75 hrs. The reasoning here is that a pilot should be able to enjoy his or her vacation if the trips get dropped and not be penalized financially. What is the point in getting the trips dropped if you can't enjoy your vacation because of the financial penalty? Any trips picked up on days off during vacation is credited as add pay ( added to min guarantee). A pilot can fly a couple of trips and get over one hundred hrs pay for a month. A pilot that has four weeks of vacation can seriously augment their pay and QOL. Last year many XJT pilots were getting 150 hr month pay on vacation months in the first quarter because of red flag (150% pay for trips picked up on days off) and 12-14 days off. Can PBS do this?

If you read, here, there, or the crackpipe, if the pilot "tricks" the system properly, YES, they will get paid min guaranty and get the same, or similar time off as XJT during line bid/vacation conflict.

But I'm curious as to the second part as well. Can an ASA pilot pick up over vacation and have the trip credit go above his min guaranty?

 

[OCP]

Ok back on subject. PBS. With the ASA PBS, two four days touch the first and last day of vacation, the trips get dropped but what happens to line value? If the dropped trips reduce your line below min guarantee, is ones pay actual vacation week plus flying or min guarantee? At XJT you can fly one trip in a vacation month and get paid min guarantee 75 hrs. The reasoning here is that a pilot should be able to enjoy his or her vacation if the trips get dropped and not be penalized financially. What is the point in getting the trips dropped if you can't enjoy your vacation because of the financial penalty? Any trips picked up on days off during vacation is credited as add pay ( added to min guarantee). A pilot can fly a couple of trips and get over one hundred hrs pay for a month. A pilot that has four weeks of vacation can seriously augment their pay and QOL. Last year many XJT pilots were getting 150 hr month pay on vacation months in the first quarter because of red flag (150% pay for trips picked up on days off) and 12-14 days off. Can PBS do this?

There is no such thing as a trip touching vacation and getting dropped with PBS, because PBS will not award a paring that is over your vacation. With the system you need to make a min credit for each month. Once that credit limit has been met, the system stops awarding parings to you. Our system allows a higher or lower credit, depending on what you want to do. Make more money, or have more vacation.

From what we have seen those who want to maximize their vacation have had not problem and have had better results than previous line bidding.

I don't know about picking up trips over vacation. I'm not sure we have that at all here at ASA. You can sell your vacation back, then pick up trips, but only if the company needs you too.

 

[OCP]

If you read, here, there, or the crackpipe, if the pilot "tricks" the system properly, YES, they will get paid min guaranty and get the same, or similar time off as XJT during line bid/vacation conflict.

But I'm curious as to the second part as well. Can an ASA pilot pick up over vacation and have the trip credit go above his min guaranty?

There is no "tricking" the system. That is what people like you seem to be missing. Maximizing vacation was an important thing for us to not lose. That is why our system allows it and it is easy to do.

 

[79%N1]

So XJT guys exclaim so often that it is sooooo important to maximize their vacation time off, because the days off are so important, etc. In the next breath they claim how they want to be able to pick up more flying on their vacation days! Which is it? Seems like simple greed to me. Drop all my touching trip and make sure I get paid for the work I'm not doing - but, let me go ahead and double dip by then flying on those precious off days and get paid double. No, we're not losing any money!

 

[LazyLightnin']

I just wish they'd shut the hell up in the hotel vans about how neat their contract is. I'm trying read the paper, slick.

 

[V1rowt8]

So XJT guys exclaim so often that it is sooooo important to maximize their vacation time off, because the days off are so important, etc. In the next breath they claim how they want to be able to pick up more flying on their vacation days! Which is it? Seems like simple greed to me. Drop all my touching trip and make sure I get paid for the work I'm not doing - but, let me go ahead and double dip by then flying on those precious off days and get paid double. No, we're not losing any money!

Im guessing the reason why some pilots are double dipping is to make up the concessions, down grades, lost days off, QOL, benefits to name a few that they were forced to take over the last decade. How is that greedy? When the airlines were making record profits did they come to the pilot groups and offer more pay? Nope. They just drag out CBA negotiations for as long as they can. How long did ASA pilots negotiate their last contract? The point is unfortunately the professional airline pilot has been conditioned to take care of numero uno when it comes to pay and QOL. Sorry if most pilots don't trust management to take care of their best interests.

Currently XJTrs have the option to either maximize their vacation or work a little more to make more on their vacation months. At least they have the option to do this. The ASA PBS system does not allow this to the best of my knowledge, if I am wrong I stand corrected.

 

[LazyLightnin']

You are wrong and will be considered corrected.