ACA: No to Yes....

[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.

 

[Cappy]

I just want to ask the question: HOW WOULD YOU EXPECT MANAGEMENT TO PROTRAY THE SITUATION?

My point is this, if management really wanted you to agree to a crappy TA then why wouldn't they paint the bleakest picture possible to everyone and have them repeat it.

As someone said to me perception is reality.

What an idea, management lying to everyone. No, that would never happen.

If you vote the TA down make no mistake that the negotiations will continue. I doubt management would just lick their wounds and fold.

Good Luck!!!!!

Our MEC and Negotiating committee were in on a few of the meetings with UAL and Bain & Co. The facts are easy...it IS a bleak picture right now and specifically with our line tied to the UAL sinking ship.

Financials don't lie. Our team were presented with all the necessary financials to make the decision to even show up at the bargaining table. I have faith that our team has done well considering the risks we face today. Will tomorow be better? Sure. But unfortunately we have to deal with today first.

I would like for you to explain how how you know for a fact that ACA management will, absolutely without a doubt, renegotiate a TA? And how long will it take? Will the Bain & Co extend our response for a whole new presentation to the pilots? I doubt that you possess such factual knowledge and let me be clear...FACTS are the only things that matter. Not speculation and rumor.

Please remember the previous MEC's efforts regarding the Charter LOA. If you recall, rates were 125% of current rates, 158 Jet acft minimum for our mainline, No Furlough protection, 200% pay at 4hrs min on a day off for open time. There is more. The reason that LOA did not pass was because the pilots did not believe a No Furlough clause nor minimum 158 Jets was worth any negotiating capital. Besides, our pilots reasoned, the company would surely come back to the table to renegotiate...right?

Our MEC chairman said several things of importance to us all:

1. We needed the No Furlough protection due to the questionable state of UAL's finances.

2. the 158 Jets gurantee would allow for some minimum growth AND negotiating leverage if needed in the neer future.

3. The terms of the LOA were negotiable ONLY ONCE per our current CBA! Meaning, the Company could operate under current rates and work rules.

The MEC was raked over the coals for even mentioning No Furlough. "We'll NEVER furlough!", said many. "We'll MAKE them come back to the table!", said others still.

My long-winded point is this...trust the officers that you have elected to negotiate on your behalf. They know much more than you.

 

[RJPilott]

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.

Interesting point you bring up Cappy. I dont know Cuda, but he could be a CRJ FO in which case the rates are the same. To put things in perspective, SKYW 50 seat rates are 6-7% higher than our 50 seat TA and their 70 seat rates are 2-3% lower than our 70 seat TA with re-negotiation in 18 months when they actually will be getting the 70's. As far as the excuse that management will implement rates in 18 months instead of negotiating in good faith? I'll use the same excuse being used now, they will re-negotiate because "they are scared of ALPA coming on property."

As far as the Charter LOA. I really shake my head when pilots compare a concessionary/survival TA with insignificant savings for UAL over 5 years to a growth LOA that could have had unlimited earning potential or no gain at all for ACA. Mind you, also no loss. Charter LOA was icing. The current TA is the cake. Management had nothing to lose with the charter when it was voted down. They will have ALOT of people to answer to if they do nothing when and if our TA is voted down. Dontcha think? However, I voted yes on the Charter LOA, and will vote no on the TA tomorrow. Yes, i been to a roadshow, spoke to MEC and NC personally, and watched the webcast a few times.

 

[Cappy]

Re: Re: ACA: No to Yes....

Flaim bait? Maybe? Your comments uninformed and juvenile, YES!!!

No choice? Are you kidding? SKW pilots gave no concessions and will fly 70 seaters at our old 50 seat rate. Whose the a$$hole?

If UAL can afford SKW at their current pilot rates (which are 2% below ours at ACA--basically our ALPA dues) then they can afford us as well! Also, if you think for one minute that our MGT would hinge the success of ACA on this one TA, please reconsider. Furthermore, If you don't think ACA has been awared the flying already and is waiting to announce it how SKW did AFTER their TA passed, wake up.

We have a choice, vote NO!!!

Otherwise, we are no better than Mesa. And Skeen and Moore will laugh all the way to the bank while our 96 furloughs stand in line at the unemployment office. Dude, wake the f*ck up.
I'm reminded of a true story told to me from the number one on the J-41 CA whom is in my crashpad and a fellow Hotlantian.

BAck in 1995-6 ACA was in a worse financial situation and bequested to lay most of the financial burden of health insurance expenses on the pilots and FAs.

The FAs stood their ground and gave Skeen et al the 'ole finger.
The frighted pilots, ever scared and always "just wanting to fly" gave in and signed a LOA to help shoulder the financial strain of health care from the company.

To THIS day, FAs don't pay a f*ck'n dime towards their health insurance while we pilots front our underpaid portion.

That scare tactic worked before, don't let it work again. It's BS and propaganda what you hear from the company.

Vote NO!!!

Tailwinds...

Oh look! It's my good friend g159av8tor! I certainly hope you don't kiss your mom with that mouth. I do believe a little proper english words would be just fine, thank you.

Points to consider:

1. SKW can fly any acft below 99 seats at 50 seat rates. Explain why you prefer status pay to negotiated 70 seat rates that the TA has.

2. You say: "If you don't think ACA has been awarded the flying already and is waiting to announce it, how SKW did AFTER their TA passed, wake up." Please provide the proof that ACA, or any carrier except SKW has been awarded flying already. Also, SKW NEVER negotiated a TA. They are not unionized. The agreement is in principle only and can change to 18 years or 18 days.

3. You state: "BAck in 1995-6 ACA was in a worse financial situation and bequested to lay most of the financial burden of health insurance expenses on the pilots and FAs." True. But you forgot to mention the part about the Pilots getting back stock that allowed me four years later to pay CASH for my first house! And I'm not even that senier! Please don't forget to mention some fact in there.

4. "To THIS day, FAs don't pay a f*ck'n dime towards their health insurance while we pilots front our underpaid portion." I assure you, if you look at the FA's pay and work rules, you cannot deny that they pay for their health insurance in much worse ways.

5. "That scare tactic worked before, don't let it work again. It's BS and propaganda what you hear from the company." DON'T LISTEN TO THE COMPANY!!! But DO listen to your elected leadership. If you cannot trust your leadership, they are line pilots too, then whom can you trust?

Please take a basic writing course. Your continued use of profanity gives the impression that you lack the professionalism and disposition that real airline pilots should possess. Calm heads will prevail!

 

[Cappy]

Management had nothing to lose with the charter when it was voted down.

That is correct and we had much to gain including furlough protection. However that's in the past. Thank you for taking the time to educate yourself and vote with your God given brain...not emotion.

Chow.

 

[46Driver]

And I always thought cursing indicated a lack of vocabulary and creativity.....

 

[MarriedToIt]

I acquiesce.

Sorry. I couldn't resist.

I just can't stand it when some criticize the writing skills of others when they have glaring gaps in their own.

It really is trivial. There are much bigger issues to discuss here.

If you wanted to be an English teacher, then you are in the wrong profession. I think we all get the gist whether or not someone can diagram a sentence or can spell at your level.

And as long as we're speaking of professionalism and swearing ... I do work in an aircraft maintenance environment. Swearing is part of the vernacular. They are simply words. Edited for your pleasure. I've always enjoyed the fact that this is a casual, public forum designed for the free flowing exchange of thoughts, ideas and opinions. Swearing isn't always necessary or appropriate, but I am certainly not offended reading the watered down version here.

 

[Diesel]

actually cappy the streaming video wasn't up until last week when I posted my info.

Don't be fooled by cappy's managment stance. It's not just a 7.5 percent pay cut for FIVE YEARS. It's much more than that. Work rule changes and overtime pay cut it again. When the wash comes out it's going to be more like 15percent.

SkyW has it right. Let it ride for 18 months and then take a look at it again.

I'm not even sure why anybody is talking about a 70 seat in the first place. It's not like they are on property or even coming on property any time soon. The 70 seat issue is just a carrot they put out for us while they beat us with a stick. Meanwhile we keep walking towards the carrot.

Cappy- What do you care anyway. Managment isn't taking any pay cuts so your pay won't change.

 

[acaTerry]

This is not aimed at anyone in particular, but...

I just can't stand it when some criticize the writing skills of others when they have glaring gaps in their own.
If you wanted to be an English teacher, then you are in the wrong profession. I think we all get the gist whether or not someone can diagram a sentence or can spell at your level.


Maybe so. But for crying out loud, if you want to place an intelligent point, at least try to look intelligent. Besides, pilots are SUPPOSED to be educated, mature, intelligent people. Failure to comprehend fifth grade spelling and grammer makes one look stupid and lazy, especially when the post is 90% emotional lashing at someone simply because they disagree with your point.
How can we convince the public that airline pilots are skilled labor? How can we say that we deserve professional pay and treatment because we are responsible, intelligent, mature professionals (at least while flying!) when we make ourselves look like HS dropouts?
I'd say 70% of the posts in here lack any meaningful points. It is purely entertainment now. Little if any useful information is out there for aspiring pilots. In fact, I know several people who decided NOT to become airline pilots due to getting the wits scared out of them thinking everyone hates each other.
If this board must fall down to name calling and back stabs, at least make it easy to read. And this is coming from a Georgia boy!
Fly safe and read your spelling books.....
Terry

 

[Machdog1]

Hello!

Don't base your vote on emotions!!
It seems to me that all the no votes are basing there votes on pure emotions and not the facts, and the facts that I have seen posted for a no vote are totally not true, which means I think the no voters are not really informed about how bad of a situation we are really in. Heres a fact for all you naa sayers, my friend works at allegany they voted down there pay cut, to keep there pride and self respect right? Well now they are not getting any of the new jets and they are retiring there Dash 8s sounds like a forlough to me, what about you, oh yeah it can't happen here! Listen to are union hotline message they are desperate to get this thing to pass because they know how bad it really is. You have time to change your vote please reconsider, for the sake and future of this company!! Don't make me have to say I told you so!

 

[WhiteCloud]

Re: Hello!

Don't base your vote on emotions!!
It seems to me that all the no votes are basing there votes on pure emotions and not the facts, and the facts that I have seen posted for a no vote are totally not true, which means I think the no voters are not really informed about how bad of a situation we are really in. Heres a fact for all you naa sayers, my friend works at allegany they voted down there pay cut, to keep there pride and self respect right? Well now they are not getting any of the new jets and they are retiring there Dash 8s sounds like a forlough to me, what about you, oh yeah it can't happen here! Listen to are union hotline message they are desperate to get this thing to pass because they know how bad it really is. You have time to change your vote please reconsider, for the sake and future of this company!! Don't make me have to say I told you so!

Machdog, Your post is one of the most emotional pleas on the board. Fear is a powerful emotion and you're scared!