aca updates

[surplus1]

A common theme I've seen here, 'if the MEC and the negoatiating comitte have brought this back it must be a good TA.'

No one can tell you all what to do or what is best and I'm not trying, but you hit the nail on the head with that one.

Your union, and I'm not talking about the ACA group, I'm talking about ALPA, has a concessionary mindset right now. It is focused on the needs of the majors (like everything else in ALPA). If "the majors" have to take concessions, then of course YOU have to take concessionS too, because that is in "their" interest.

Negotiations have taken place because somebody has decided that they should take place. As soon as that decision was made concessions were a foregone conclusion; there was no reason to negotiate at all if concessions were not the intent of the eventual outcome. Therefore the outcome should be no surprise.

Whom do you think recommended to your MEC that concessions were a "good idea"? Any chance it was the same people that "recommended" the Mesa contract? Who "recommended" what happened at ALG/PSA/PDT? Who "recommended" the 16-year Eagle contract? Who is there in the road shows (besides ACA pilots) "recommending" that you should take the deal? Will they be affected by it?

Originally posted by Blueridge

Just a word of caution for all those thinking that this TA will guarantee us continued profitablity and expansion.

This TA guarantees us one thing and one thing only. We will make less than we would have without the TA.

BINGO! You are 100% correct.

Sure UAL has to pick us to affirm the TA but so what. It does not say that UAL has to expand us or even to keep us at our current level. UAL could very well use us at half our current capacity or less.

Your batting average is still 1,000. What is the "purpose" of these concessions again?

Do you really believe that this is going to make UAL "pick you" when otherwise it would not?

This TA does not bring back those who have been furloughed nor prevent anyone else from being furloughed.

Right again, so who is it going to "help"? Is this actually going to protect your job? How?

This TA does not allow us to revisit the necessity of pay cuts if by chance the company winds up doing better than expected. We'd have to wait five painful years to do that.

You got that right too (except the wait will be more than five years). That translates to at least six to seven (counting negotiating time) to maybe get back to the numbers and rules you have today, minus the impact of COL increases that will undoubtedly occur in the interim.

Same question as before ... what is the true purpose of these concessions? Who are they going to "save" and from what?

Remember too that we are fighting for the business of a carrier that is in bankruptcy. There is no guarantee that they will emerge successfully. What happens if UAL accepts our bid but subsequently liquidates?

Another accurate statement, followed by a very pertinent question. I like the way you think.

If your TA is approved and UAL tanks or simply gives its business to a competitor, what happens next? Your Company will look for business elsewhere, and the most likely "elsewhere" will be ..... Delta ..... where your new "concessions" will likely force the other Delta Connections to match or better your concessions or the ones in the new SKYW TA or the AWAC agreement.

Bottom line .... little by little we are all being led like lemmings down the primrose path to making more and more concessions to profitable companies, none of which have so far benefited one single regional pilot and none of which is likely to do so. Meanwhile we race merrily along undermining each other, giving up our seniority to furloughed mainline pilots, sabotaging the negotiations at ASA and COEX and CHQ and benefiting whom? Management ... and a "labor union" with little if any concern for the welfare of its second class members.

BRAVO.

I wish you luck, but this is one regional pilot (an outsider at ACA), who does not comprehend the madness. We all seem caught up it the willing rush to poverty and our own detriment, without logic, without reason, and with no visible or even promised benefit. That brings us right back to square one ......

This TA [and all the others] guarantees us one thing and one thing only. We will make less than we would have without the TA.

(Emphasis supplied)

S - E - N - S - E - L - E - S - S.

 

[j41driver]

I will listen, and then I will vote, no.... I hope the smarter members of the pilot group join me......

I'm right there with ya on this one. NO fu*king way!

 

[Brother Francis]

Something I noticed

Machdog said (on another thread):

Chic whaa is the poor mans airline don't even bother working for them!!

Machdog also said (on this thread):

Vote the **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** thing in so we can all keep are jobs and start growing again its not that bad of a cut....

Just thought it needed pointing out that while bashing a group that is standing up for themselves (and everyone else, for that matter) this soul advocates the capitulation of his own, to the detriment of ACA (and everyone else, for that matter).

 

[BlueRidger]

Machdog1 point of view is definitely in the minority at ACA. His attitude is even more so.

Most of Us are very willing to listen to our MEC and see what they have to say. They are a sharp group of people but most of the pilots see too many inefficencies in ACA's daily operations to justify this much of a pay cut for this long of a period. The SkyWest TA's 18 month duration has added fuel to this fire. If ACA were not at the bottm of the DOT's rankings I think the TA would be recieved a little more positively. The concession's do not make enough of a reduction in costs to make much of a difference in our bid to UAL (less than 1 CASM). Because of this most pilots think that the TA really will make no great impact on future growth and that ACA is too big of a piece of the UEX puzzle to just be dumped (i.e UAL's injunction). It is for these reasons that I believe most of the pilots are willing to take a gamble and shoot this TA down. And no one except mach dog 1 wants to rush into this with a yes.

Stay informed and VOTE!

On a side note if ACA loses the UAL flying we would apply to COMAIR to increase the Feed we give them in CVG. On a flight from LAN the other day I look at the connection sheet and out of 32 pax 25 were connecting to Comair, 6 to ACA and 1 to Mainline DAL Welcome to Comair Express!

 

[70Cuda]

"Nothing ventured, nothing gained!!!!"

To all of the gutless pilots out there who bend over in the slightest breeze in order to save what you call your pathetic jobs (that's right, Mesa. I'm talking especially about you!) you have only yourselves to blame for your sorry pay and lifestyle. We as regional pilots could have incredible leverage over management if only we could stick together and fight for the "standard." Unfortunately, there are too many "soft-minded, and selfish" pilots out there that only care about themselves. These "weak-link" pilots destroy our collective potential as a whole.

Can you not see that it's not management that sets our low standards!!!! Our pathetic pay is a reflection of ourselves. As a group we have no "backbone" are "selfish" and lack the "courage" to do what we know is right deep down in our heart, which is to stand up to management even if it means the potential of getting furloughed. If all pilot groups stood to fight together then management wouldn't be able to pit us against each other and there wouldn't be a race to the bottom, or furloughs, for that matter.

Getting furloughed is not the end of the World. If you don't have the confidence in yourself to believe you can find another job to take care of your family then you have serious issues. You become the weak link and will bring down the "standards."

I've been furloughed and can tell you it's not the end of the World.

Nothing is ever gained by continually giving up what you have fought for. Fighting for what is "right" will always be risky and have consequenses, but the rewards are usually worth it. Hell, if our "Founding Fathers" didn't have the guts to risk everything they had in order to fight the Brits for independence then we'd all be eating "fish & chips" right now.

I will vote "No" for this TA, and no matter what happens I will at least have my self-respect. 5 Years is just far to long!!!!

 

[Machdog1]

alright!!

First as for the comment on chic waha they are part of the reason why this TA is out so I would tell anybody not to go work there. I don't want this TA as much as anybody else, that is the point I am trying to make. And I know I am not alone on that. On my original post yes I have said quit complaining and vote, in retrosespect, that was wrong to say ! But at least I am considering my options because honestly I don't know whats going to happen if we vote no, can you say you do? I don't know if I'm willing to risk that ,thats all!! I know other people agree with me, believe me I might have seemed to have been fully committed to a yes answer but that will not be decided until the roadshow and a long thought process, I suggest that all of you do the same.
later
P.S.
You all make valid points lets all try to keep an open mind.

 

[Brother Francis]

Ummm

So let me make sure I have this straight:

Chautauqua is in the midst of a strike vote over pay and work rule improvements while ACA is voting on contract concessions to same.

You personally advocated acceptance of said concessions then backpedaled in the face of criticism of your advocacy and are stating now you are only considering the option of accepting said concessions for fear of the unknown.

The CHQ pilots on the other hand, are ready to strike and to he// with the consequences rather than accept insufficient improvements.

Furthermore, an unscientific sampling from these boards shows the majority of your ACA colleagues are adamantly standing their ground, too.

And you blame Chautauqua for lowering the bar.

(Brother Francis wanders perplexedly away scratching head and mumbling)

 

[46Driver]

Nobody I have talked to is going to vote for this TA. The major sticking point is the 5 year contract. If it was a matter of the companies life or death, then maybe - but everybody thinks it is just a management ploy. And particularly galling to the Delta Connection side of the house is that our United benefits were taken away because we didn't contribute to United - now that United is in trouble, why are they demanding that the Delta side take pay cuts - you can't have it both ways.... The more I consider the facts, the more definite I am on voting NO.

 

[KingAirKiddo]

The roadshows start tomorrow. I genuinely hope that everyone will take all information into account before reaching a decision regarding this vote. If, after all the information is presented and the concessions still seem bogus, then vote NO on the tentative agreement with my blessing. After all, we have a closed contract with a profitable company and are not obligated to make any concessions at this time. If the opposite is true, I hope the pilot group will recognize it and act accordingly.

Are concessions necessary to keep the UAX flying? Maybe, maybe not. We may be able to keep the UAL contract without making any. Recent actions by UAL management in bankruptcy court have pointed to their unwillingness to let us disappear from their recovery plan. Alternatively, it may be necessary to make some due to the fact that there are several different carriers lining up to take over should UAL decide to dump us. The simple fact is that without all of the information, it is impossible to reach a sound conclusion.

I think these forums are an excellent resource. My initial reaction to the TA, based on the bullet points presented was "oh, that's not too bad." Surplus and BlueRidge, among others on the ALPA boards, etc. made some excellent points to the contrary and have now put me back on the fence. The biggest point that I'm trying to make now is that more information is necessary. Hopefully the next few days will start to answer some of the questions that we all have regarding what this TA will mean to all of our futures.

Let's keep the discussion going.

 

[Blueridgeflyer]

I respectfully disagree.

I think it is quite appropriate to approach the idea of concession with extreme skepticism. We should all be predisposed to reject the TA....and render it impotent. It shall be the responsibility of our MEC to convince us, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that concessions are necessary.

Blueridgeflyer