ACA: No to Yes....

[stillaboo]

YV clarification

Jeepman,
Freedumb is growing, but under the Mesa certificate. This changes the whole situation. Either way, the Blacklist is out, thank God.
Fly safe,
Terry

Just to claify: Freedom is still growing under the Freedom certificate, but the pilots are now on one seniority list, ALPA, and there are no more 'whip-saw' pilots (all pilots going to Freedom now are Mesa ALPA, and bid over there by seniority). Orenstein is takin' his sweet time getting the -700's and 900's onto the Mesa certificate, and there are still junior Freedom supporters on the 700/ 900 (without 200 differences training), while more senior Mesa guys are waiting for 700 and 900 training. He also still has the CC Air certificate. 'The list' is the only way to tell one from another anymore.

Good luck to ACA. If being the cheapest had anything to do with UAX flying, Mesa would have gotten the flying, not Skywest. Take that for what it's worth.

-Boo!

 

[acaTerry]

I was talking with one of Mesa's senior ERJ Captains and he said that the Freedumb certificate was all blow, that it is under Mesa. Whatever the case, Freedumb can not be used as a weapon against Mesa pilots and that's what the TA boiled down to. That and eight days off, pay issues...blah blah blah.

 

[70Cuda]

"Principle or Self Preservation?"

This is definitely the dilemma.

Once again, from reading peoples posts and hearing talk in the crew rooms I'm convinced nobody has a crystal ball. This is a poker game and we don't know if management is bluffing or not. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. The fact is......we don't know. I find it really interesting, and sad, how aggressive some folks are about their beliefs based SOLELY on guesswork. I often listened to these types swear up and down about how ACA would NEVER furlough pilots. This opinion based solely on the fact that we didn't furlough after 9/11. Come on, folks. What kind of anti-logic is that. I remember some of these staunch "vote NO" types also praising the virtues of TM and KS. Now these guys are cursing them from take-off to touch-down.

As for SKYW already having the signed contract before the pilots voted.....well, maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Maybe UAL was waiting to see if they would sign, and if they didn't then maybe they would not have gotten the contract. The FACT is that only management knew, and probably only UAL types.

As for MESA, well, those boys were in a tight spot and the first ones in the barrel. Who really knows what one of the other higher paid regionals would have done in that situation. Unfortunately for them I believe their ALPA management let them and the rest of the ALPA groups down. Or maybe it was the other way around?

Folks, ACA may hit harder times if we vote the TA down. Then again, maybe it won't. If all you "absolute" types really had the ability to read managements poker face I'm sure you would have applied that instinct to the stock market and certainly wouldn't be working for a regional.

As for ACAterry, ease up buddy. To be emotional is to be human. That is what gives color to Life.

g159av8tor, of course we have a choice!! Our choice is to GUESS!! To guess which hand is holding the money......Yes, or No. Your rhetoric is exactly what I'm talking about. Spouting off with absolutely no fact. All you come to the table with is "what he said, or what she said." You may very well be right about ACA already having a contract with UAL. Then again, you may be DEAD WRONG. I ask you would you bet your LIFE on it? That's what I thought!! Talk is cheap. You want credibility, then lead us to FACTS!!

 

[g159av8tor]

70Cuda and Cappy,

I've watched the road show video. I've talked to everyone I can and have ease dropped on many TA conversations to get many different points of view. The best thing and the worst thing about America is that people can spout out drivel all day long. Suffer through my opinions and tirades or just don't read them.

I feel and think passionately about this TA its fallout. I want nothing more than to put it all behind us. But, I'm compelled to display my fervent opinions, how I've drawn my well-thought-out conclusions and rally support for my cause. And yes, the facts for both arguments are few and far between. My intuition tells me this TA isn't right. No, I can't prove my SKW theory about the ink drying on the deal as the TA vote is announced, but the facts will come out eventually. If I'm wrong, I can admit it.

Furthermore, if you've read my previous posts you'll discover that though I've ardently expressed my opinions and am guilty of persuasion, I feel most zealously about people giving up their voice, their right to vote.

Know this: however you vote, as long as you agree with me, make sure you vote. Apathy is the pin in my pee-hole.

Cappy, first you've been in the industry and around ACA a long time, tell me why and how'll you vote.

Also Cappy,

Not only are you a weenie, you must be Oscar frigg'n Myer!!!

"Ohhhh, I wish I was an Oscar Myer wiener"
"That is what I really want to be"
"For If I was an Oscar Myer wiener,"
"Everyone would be in love with me."


Tailwinds,

Aaron Robbins, CA J-41

PS just a joke, the wiener part!

 

[tarp]

TM (Tom Moore) comes in to the Dulles crew room to scare all of us. Yes, I was there.

What a despicable, low-down tactic!

-- Poor TM only gets 100,000 options every October. Boo hoo, he's so poor, the airline is on its death bed, he can't make a profit. (Have you looked at ACA stock 10.37/shr last time I looked up from $6.00 in Oct which TM would buy at a discount making about a 100% profit or roughly $500,000 if he sold last October's options today!) How gullible are you guys!

--We're so bad and TM is so poor. Did you know that 53% of his costs are salary? That's what TM said. NO KIDDING! Airlines are a SERVICE industry - of course salaries are going to be a large percentage of his costs. What he didn't say was how much REVENUE he's making! (Have you looked at our 10Q's, this company is drowning in cash and marketable wealth.)

--If we don't sign this TA what incentive does poor TM have to keep the airline running - we pilots don't seem to agree to anything. No kidding again Tom and we're starting to question our union leadership. We don't want to join the race to the bottom. We don't want to work our a$$es off night and day doing Uncle Tom's Charter work with no vacations. We don't want to take 7.5% pay cuts which will turn into 20% cuts when the work rules change and ACA's version of preferential bidding comes into play. We don't want to give the Tom And Jerry (whups Kerry) Show the rights to create an "alter-ego" airline with non-ACA pilots. Did you guys actually READ the TA? I'd gladly say "yes" to a reasonable request from management but what the he11 is our Union doing with this negotiation? It is a pure and utter insult to our professional status.

--The money doesn't go to poor Tom and ACA, it's just a pass-through to United. Geez these were practically the first words out of his mouth almost like he told the Union what to say in the roadshows! Well that's fine - last time I checked, I worked for ACA, my paycheck says ACA, my ID says ACA. So if we say NO, we're denying a bankrupt airline the ability to get back on its feet. (I.e. my paycheck has a direct connection to United). Yeah, I got this beautiful bridge in Brooklyn for sale, any bids?? So ACA stock is not going to go up? ACA isn't going to make a bigger profit than it did last year? ACA isn't going to grow one iota from voting "yes" and all we're doing is keeping United from insolvency through our gererous donations? Sorry, that's just krap of the highest order. Bottom line our P&L (profit and loss) will look a whole lot stronger, our stock price will go up, Tom and Kerry will get bonuses for making us MORE profitable and we will be left with less money to buy groceries.

NO, no, no No, no NO, NO.

I won't buy it and yes I'm willing to bet that they won't shut us down, that we still get United flying and eventually we will get 70 seaters in service but not right away. I don't care. It's Tom's job to work hard and make ends meet. It's my job to work hard and make airplanes fly safely through the air and to the best of my ability on schedule. It's not my place to give 20% of my salary back to Tom so that he can make "easy" money. No way! It's just too easy.

Tom: Fix the rampers, fix maintenance, fix Chicago, fix your Dispatch team, fix your scheduling team and for pity's sake stop buying expensive toys to "enhance productivity". I'd love to be a computer software salesman to ACA because they buy every cockeyed program under the sun and keep changing their accounting and productivity software. Tom - start doing the hard work of running your company and please don't come to the crew room unless you've got something nice to say!

Mad as he11 and voting NO.

 

[Redtailer]

We don't want to give the Tom And Jerry (whups Kerry) Show the rights to create an "alter-ego" airline with non-ACA pilots. Did you guys actually READ the TA?

I don't have a copy of the entire TA in front of me but is this really in there?

If it is, it should be voted down just for that very reason. Has anyone ever heard of Freedom or Republic? You guys will really screw yourselves if this is the case. ACA Mgt. is just upset because they couldn't pull the same whipsaw technique. Now they will be able to do it.

 

[tarp]

From the roadshow (blurb, not the contract)

Minority Investments:

Minority investment of more than 25% in a start-up carrier:

Company will condition the investment on the start-up carrier’s agreement to extend preferential hiring to active and furloughed ACA pilots in seniority order. Limited to 1:5 open pilot positions at the start-up carrier; and no more than 4 ACA pilots per month and 36 per year.

Minority investment of more than 25% in an existing carrier:

Company will use reasonable efforts to obtain the existing carrier’s agreement to extend preferential hiring to active and furloughed ACA pilots in seniority order. Limited to 1:5 open pilot positions at the existing carrier; and no more than 4 ACA pilots per month and 36 per year.

This provision will expire ED + 24 months

Ergo, ACA can build an alter-ego of itself (like using ACJet certificate), create a "start-up", agree to hire 1-to-5 ratio but basically can create 5 non-ACA positions for every 1 ACA/union position.

You guys open the door (by voting yes) and I guarantee one other thing, Tom and Kerry will drive a Mack truck through this little loophole! We are creating a loophole in one of the only ironclad things we have going for us - all investments by ACAI must hire ACA-Alpa Union pilots - i.e. scope for us. We allow this language to go in and we are shooting ourselves in the foot!

Just tell me how many times "scheduling" has interpreted the contract language in favor of the company - OK, you tell me how this doesn't open a loophole in our contract. I'm not going to work for "ACA Light" with 80% less ACA pilots. I'm working for original ACA with all the calories and all the costs of a regular airline.

Sorry, I have to start making jokes or I'm just going to explode.

 

[70Cuda]

Good point,

The ACJet issue could be real nasty for ACA pilots. That and the 5 year issue make this TA almost too hard to swallow.

 

[KingAirKiddo]

The minority investment part of the TA is in addition to current scope language; it is not a replacement. It does nothing but cover a loophole in our current scope language...current language says that all flying in REVENUE service by ACA or ACAI must be done by pilots on the company seniority list (paraphrased...I don't have the contract in front of me). However, current scope language does nothing to address INCOME derived from investing a minority stake in another carrier. The TA basically states that if we hold a minority interest in a new startup, then 1 out of every 5 ACA pilots must be given preferential hiring. If ACAI holds a majority stake in a new startup, then all flying must be done by ACA pilots on the seniority list.

The fundamental difference is the economic/legal definition of REVENUE versus INCOME...sorry, I'm not an MBA so I can't really expand on that point.

later,
KAK

 

[General Lee]

Dave Benjamin,

As of right now, pre-Dalpa negotiations anyways, there is no way for you to get around the 57 allotted 70 seater agreement. Only ASA and Comair are getting portions of the 57 70 seaters. I have heard that Delta would like to have more 70 seaters, and they may throw us a bone by offering new 100 seaters to us for our furloughs. But, it would take awhile to get the new 100 seaters, so we may ask for some of the 70 seaters (over the 57 amount going to ASA/Comair) for our own, under a separate cerificate. There are a lot of options out there. For right now though, Skywest will not have any 70 seaters flying for Delta, but that may change in the future.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[mckpickle]

Check this website out. Click on the left above the picture of the pilots.

http://www.martinlevitt.com/

 

[Dave Benjamin]

For right now though, Skywest will not have any 70 seaters flying for Delta, but that may change in the future.

Gen Lee,
I haven't heard anything about 70 seaters for DAL just for UAL. In fact we're slated to have 30 70 seaters online by summer 2005. The bigger question is whether or not your union could prevent us from flying a 86 seater for UAL.

 

[General Lee]

Dave,

I wasn't aware of that. I guess I do not really know all of the rules of the contract. I was only aware of the 57 limit on the number of 70 seaters for the DCI flying. Seriously, what does it say about the number of planes and what types you can fly for a competitor? I could go try to find my copy of the contract, but I might have been using it as toilet paper since 9-11.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Patriot328]

The minority investment part of the TA is in addition to current scope language; it is not a replacement. It does nothing but cover a loophole in our current scope language...current language says that all flying in REVENUE service by ACA or ACAI must be done by pilots on the company seniority list (paraphrased...I don't have the contract in front of me). However, current scope language does nothing to address INCOME derived from investing a minority stake in another carrier. The TA basically states that if we hold a minority interest in a new startup, then 1 out of every 5 ACA pilots must be given preferential hiring. If ACAI holds a majority stake in a new startup, then all flying must be done by ACA pilots on the seniority list.

The fundamental difference is the economic/legal definition of REVENUE versus INCOME...sorry, I'm not an MBA so I can't really expand on that point.

later,
KAK

KAK,

EXACTLY. The language in our TA STRENGTHENS our scope, it does NOT loosen it. A lot of people are mis-informed when it comes to that portion of the TA.

 

[Cappy]

ACA allready sent in their proposal to ual before they asked for concessions from the pilots.

So how is taking concessions going to make aca more competitive. Are they going to re submit their bid.

Again 5 years jesus. We'll be back on the downturn by the time the 5 years are over.

70cuda- How could you look yourself in the mirror for flying a 70 seat rj for 50 seat wages.

Clearly, you did not attend one of the roadshows or watch the streaming video presentation. If you did you would have seen the answer right there. Come back and post after you have the information unless you do not work at ACA. If that is the case, your opinions about an in-house issue are of no use to me or anyone else.

As far as the last sentence, you must have ACA confused with Skywest. SKY will fly the 70 at 50 rates...we have 70 rates established. Again, please get the facts before posting.