aca updates

[walkthasky]

...

Well, i work for aca and i was there. It doesnt sound great. Not only the TA, but our situation at hand. Simply put, the company only bid for 87 rj's (50 seaters), that includes what we have. The MEC made it clear that the 50 seat market is flooded, and that UAL, and ACA realize that. Secondly, they bid for 50 70 seat jets, and expect to hopefully get around 20. So if you do all the math with the retirements of the j41, there really isnt any growth, if a little. Someone asked at the roadshow if it the TA was rejected, what would happen? The MEC said they didnt know but that they did know that 70 seaters would probably not be a possibility. And they made it clear that ACA's bid was based on this TA. Im not saying Vote NO or YES, just stating the facts. However, it would seem that if we voted NO, the situation could be worse. YES may keep us stable, very little growth. NO would mean a declining fleet (from what i understand). And they emphasized the j41 would be the first to go with this "restructuring plan".

Hope this helps...

 

[Surfpilot]

I agree with you on the fact that things do not look good for both the regional market and ACA. The thing that makes me stay on the NO side of the vote is something you just mentioned. What happens if we vote this TA down? No real answer last night. Now, how was Skeen when the MEC was asking about Executive Compensation? He wouldn't budge. This tells me that he is very worried about getting paid, right?! Makes me believe that if we turn this down he is going to do everything in his power to come up with a better deal with the pilots as to keep his high,overpaid, income close to where it currently is. Trust me, we vote no, he will find a way to secure United's business. 16 year leases on the aircraft. If you had a 16 year lease on your apartment, would you move out in 5 years?

Surfpilot

 

[Cappy]

It is important to realize here who can actually be hurt by any cutbacks or flying replacement. It certainly isn't the senior management. All of their profits and stock moneys have been shifted into stable (non-airline) investments like real estate or long-term bonds. They have mede their money and have nothing to lose.

The only people that have a significant amount to lose are the shareholders, who are holding the risk capital, and the employees, who have job's they have cultivated through hard work and dedication.

I would very much prefer to see management come out with a serious pay/stock options/benefits decrease for themselves, but that didn't happen. We need to focus on us right now and making the decisions that will not only affect us but our 97 furloughees.

Please keep in mind the prophetic words of our previous MEC team in January of that there may very well be furloughs and a reduction from the 158 CRJ's negotiated in the Charter LOA. You may then recall the indignant response he received from our unfaithful pilot ranks.

"That won't happen!, How can you suggest that when we are making money!, ACA needs us... they can't furlough!, We'll keep getting acft "till at least 2005! And blah blah blah. The MEC was right, the pilots were closeminded.

Our MEC's, past and present, have an insight that we have always denied use of. Even now, with ALPA National lawyers, accountants, contract administrators providing factually based information to us, we still deny their judgement and that they are in the positions to know confidential information. Certainly, if the MEC and ALPA National felt that a TA was unnecessary, it would not have been negotiated.

Remember, our MEC and Negotiating Committee must work under the pay and work rules they put their signature on.

As to myself, I have yet to decide yea or nay, but I am going into the roadshow calmed down and ready to HEAR the facts, not just listen to words ring by me.


Chow.

 

[sideshow]

I'll leave the "ACA needs us" thread for someone else because it's clear that ACA has never felt they needed us.

As for the facts, let's look at them.

TA ACCEPTED -

FACT:
7.5% wage decrease
Interim transition conflict relief (wage decrease for some)
Per-diem reduced to $1.50

Based on those facts it will take 3 years to get back to the per-diem rate we currently have and 3-4 years to get back to the current pay rates. Our pay will be somewhere between Trans States and Eagle.

SPECULATION:
We get UEX flying, 70 seaters, etc. etc. etc.

TA NOT ACCEPTED -

FACT:

SPECULATION:
United drops us as an Express partner due to TA being voted down

----------------------------------------------------
As far as the MEC having confidential information, fine. But, in my opinion they were not effective in communicating why this TA is ESSENTIAL to us keeping the United Express partnership. They clearly believe that but it doesn't look like the reasons are financial. It may be more a show of good faith to United/Bain but if that's the case I would like to have seen us get something, anything. ARW at least added a commuter clause and some other items that do not affect the bottom line. We get NOTHING. And if things turn around, or if the baseline 9 million we give them adds to profits later we still get NOTHING.

How about Tom and Kerrys compensation capped at 10 times the highest captain rate? Including options?

It was said that they didn't want stock options etc. for the pilot group because they are hard to value etc. But for us to see one penny of the profit sharing the company has to be doing quite well with the operating margin and if that's the case the stock is headed up. More than the capped 12 million in potential profit sharing.

In my opinion, the MEC and negotiating committee, who unanimously voted YES have the burden to explain their position and their vote. Why 7.5% when people at headquarters are taking 5%. Because ARW took 8% is NOT an answer. They have a completely different contract. The staunch union guys out there love the term WHIPSAW, WHIPSAW, WHIPSAW. If I'm not mistaken Mesa and ARW are ALPA and to see the MEC/negotiating committee use them to justify our reductions is irresponsible while at the same time calling Skywests contract parasitic. Originally they used Skywest to say they are not union and therefore that's a problem because the management can unilaterally hand out wage reductions. Now they have parasitic.

 

[vc10]

In what way has the Skywest contract been called "parasitic"? What's the context?

I.e. complete this sentence: "The Skywest contract is parasitic because..."

 

[General Lee]

All of the airlines, regionals and majors anyways, are trying to get concessions right now before things get better. The worst part of this has bottomed out. Unless there is another huge terrorist attack on a airplane or airport, they won't be able to point at any other problems. Leo Mullin stated yesterday that he thought an industry "uptick" will happen in mid 2004 or late 2004. What did he mean by all of that? He was saying "we still need to try to get them to give in a little more before it is too late." The economy is getting better (the Dow hit the 9000 mark yesterday), and passenger loads are returning. (All of our European flights are full from ATL, JFK, and CVG) (You can still jumpseat--especially ASA, Comair, Skywest, ACA, and Chit-talk) Things are getting better, and the industry heads don't like that. Their bonuses are sometimes based on how much they can get from labor.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[g159av8tor]

General,

Sometimes you are a hot-headed windbag. Sometimes not. What you do have is insight because of your longevity in the industry. I do "listen" to your posts fully and sometimes laugh and others times agree. I hope you can shed some more light and wisdom on ACA's situation and help educate younger and new pilots in the industry about what the pilot group is about to face if the TA is voted in or down.

Please don't get a big head and leave Comair out of this one.

Tailwinds...

 

[ACABlueridge]

I just don't see how turning down this TA will cause ACA to close the doors. I can't believe that Skeen and the boys don't have another plan of action if this doesn't get passed. Besides this TA amounts to a little over 9 mil in saving to the company which is just one part of the bid. I happen to believe that we are more competetive in other areas such as aircraft financing which will offset our pilot costs.

If Skeen lets this company shut down or lose the UEX flying because of this TA he has some serious explaining to do to the BOD and thousands of shareholders.

Seems when our MEC brought up executive compensation they walked away from the table, maybe we should have done the same thing.

I for one am willing to call their bluff, THEY have more riding on this than we do. Besides there are lots of jobs out their that pay minimum wage.

BTW, I am voting NO!!!

 

[surplus1]

So let me get this straight. You do not work at ACA, have not seen the TA in complete form, have not spoken with ALPA National reps, have not confered with our MEC or Negotiating Committee and you have the audacity to get on a public webboard and tell everone here that you know exacly what is good for us?

First of all I didn't tell anyone that I know what is good for you and you are right, I don't work for ACA. Maybe I don't know what is good for you but I do know what is bad for my group and for all other regional pilots and that is concessions being offered by YOU, by AWAC and by SKYW.

I don't need to see your TA "in its complete form" to know that it guarantees you absolutely nothing other than lower wages and lower per diem. Now if the TA (which you apparently support does offer something good, does guarantee you something .... why don't you tell us what it is? I challenge you openly to do so.

As far as the pay rates proposed in your TA it happens that I do know exactly what they are for each year of longevity, for both Captains and FO's and I also know the exact amount by which it undercuts my contract.

I was trying to be nice, but since you want to be adversarial I'll tell you bluntly .... I don't really give a dam* what you do to yourselves, but I do care what you do to the pilots at my airline and the rest of the regional industry. We didn't strike for 89 days, incidentally after your MEC rolled over, only to have you roll over again and undercut everything we accomplished for what I think is foolish and illogical reasons and lack of cojones.

Whether you like it or whether you don't, the truth is that your TA unnecessarily gives up what you already have and guarantees you NOTHING in return. Not even a snap-back when the mess is over.

I'm not going to throw rocks at your MEC for I know them and they are good people. That does NOT mean that I think they are right, for I don't in this case. I think they are taking advice from the wrong people. That brings us to your reference to "ALPA National Reps." Well buddy, I know them too and I'm intimately familiar with the kind of "advice" they dish out. That kind of advice you can do without and so can I.

Everything has a history and so do they. I've listened to the head of National's Representation Department tell the Chairman of the ASA negotiating committee, in the presence of the NMB Chair, that their desire to get the equivalent of the CMR contract was "unrealistic". ASA voted down their TA anyway and they got a better agreement.

I've heard them.... the National Reps., tell the Comair pilots way back in 1991 and again in 1992 that our expectations were also "unrealistic". We voted down our TA too, and we got a better contract. In our most recent negotiations, they told us that what we wanted was unrealistic and unachievable over and over again. The Executive Administrator went so far as to send us all a mailgram, during our strike, encouraging us to accept and unacceptable agreement. We voted down the TA that they tried to force us to take, not once but twice including while we were already on the street with the Company threatening to shutdown our airline. Result, we had to strike, but we got almost everything that we wanted. The head of the EFA has a history of concessionary bargaining at EAL, is one of the people along with the then Secretary of "national" that recommended the tragedy that is the Eagle pilots 16-year contract. I could go on and on but it doesn't really matter. Suffice to say, their advice is crap as far as I'm concerned and I couldn't care less what they say.

What is important is what YOU agree to and it's important to me not because I want to tell you what to do, but because I don't want what you do to wind up forcing my group to be subjected to the same garbage. In other words, I don't want the pilots at my airline to have to eat a sh*t sandwich because of a mistake that your MEC and its national advisers make. Is that clear enough? I have a great deal of respect for the ACA pilot group and hopefully a majority of your pilots are smart enough not to let this happen.

Unless you have attended a presentation by our MEC and Negotiating committee then all any of you can offer is speculation and conjecture. I came here to post the details of the TA but it would do little good.

According to the reports of your fellow pilots who do work for ACA, your road shows were full of doom and gloom and speculation about what might happen if you don't do this. There was NOTHING about what will happen if you do roll over because the truth is they don't know. I challenge you again. Tell us what you KNOW you will get if you take concessions. Since I am uninformed and you are informed, tell us. I would welcome your being able to prove me wrong.

Here are a few examples of what I know.

First you have agreed (TA) to pay scales for an airplane that you do not have now and which your TA does not guarantee that you will ever have, i.e., the CRJ-700. That is an airplane that we are currently flying.

On the Captain side you have undercut our current contract rates in 2004 as follows:

Year 6 ... -$8.72 Year 12 ... -$12.10 Year 18 ... -$14.51 per hour

On the FO side your have undercut our contract as follows:

Year 2 ... -$6.72 Year 4 ... -$7.15 Year 6 ... -$7.59

In the CRJ-200 on the Captain side you have (TA) undercut us by;

Year 3 .... -$5.18 Year 6 ... -$5.68 Year 12 ... -$6.32

On the FO side

Year 2 ... -$3.01 Year 4 ... -$3.19 Year 6 ... -$3.41

If that's not enough there are other areas of your TA that also affect our compensation negatively. If you dont' think that will hurt us then you don't have a clue.

If your Company was in danger directly or losing money and you had to do these things, I would be much more tolerant. However you are NOT in danger, someone (the Bain Group) or perhaps your friends at ALPA National (who by the way also "advised" Mesa pilots to do what they have done) has convinced you (and AWAC) to believe that you are in danger, and the SKYW folks are drinking the same Kool Aid. As a consequence WE are being placed in jeopardy by the actions of your groups and our own union. It is time to think for yourselves and stop following blindly the "advisers" who have other interests.

So if what I said ruffles your pin feathers, that's just too bad. You have more than ruffled mine, you have me totally P!ssed Off. There is no need whatever for this. It is motivated by fear and fear alone and you all should be voting this TA out of existence and Skywest should do likewise. If we are forced to copy this gross stupidity, it will take more than a decade to recover those wages.

 

[sideshow]

Well said and I did attend the first road show, cancelled due to the union not being ready to go, and the second. Doom and gloom with no reasoning other than concessions are in vogue.

I disagree with you about Skywest though. Politically something has to be done and a freeze for 18 months is nothing compared to this POS.

I'm not sure Cappy there attended a roadshow and this TA isn't that complex, see previous posts as to it's facts.