AirTran contract summary by section

[Lear70]

For those who are interested, Sec 1 highlights:

Section 1 – Purpose of Agreement

-Still does not bind the Holding Company except by side letter, which does NOT specifically require AirTran Holdings to honor the Agreement, but only says “Holdings will not allow Airways to breach the Scope provisions of THEIR Agreement”. Doesn’t say ANYWHERE that Holdings will be bound to the Scope provisions. Neither concession nor gain.

-Removal of provision in 1-C-1 where the company CURRENTLY, in the event of furlough, cannot use non-seniority list pilots to perform non-revenue flying (i.e. they can use retirees currently working in the training center to move aircraft, perform maintenance flights, ferry flights, acceptance flights (new deliveries), etc, even if we have pilots on furlough).

-Removal of similar provision in Section 18 that says they must furlough training center pilots not on the Master Seniority List before they furlough line pilots. Training center retirees are now a protected class of employees.

SCOPE

-Addition of new language: The requirements of Section 1-C-1 (use of seniority list pilots for ALL company flying) do NOT apply for subsidiaries the Company (or the Holding company) created to fly Turboprops OR Turbojet aircraft under 86 seats. In other words, AirTran Holdings can create ‘AirTran Express’ to do ALL sub-contracted flying and would not have to use AirTran pilots to do it.

-The MEC has been telling you that they gained a tighter company limit for RJ flying to 5-8% of the block hours flown by RJ’s; that’s ONLY true IF the company has an “unavailability of aircraft or pilots” as defined in Section 1.C.2 and 1.C.2.a. If there’s no “unavailability”, that limit does not apply, and the contract SPECIFICALLY STATES THIS in the very next section, 1.C.3.

-1-C-3. Allows UNLIMITED outsourcing of turboprops, including the 90-seat Q-400 turboprop that flies at almost 400 KTAS. Think this isn’t a big deal? Frontier Airline’s pilots gave this up last year and are now enjoying ZERO, stagnant growth while their company is purchasing Q-400’s and has placed them at a regional carrier. This aircraft is more cost-efficient to fly than any of our aircraft on 600NM and shorter segments (ref Bombardier cost analysis).

-1-C-3-a. Allows the regional we contract with to operate larger aircraft than previously allows. If that sub-service regional LATER gets larger aircraft, we are not required to terminate our Agreement with them. We can’t renew the contract, but it can run for its duration, and there’s no contractual “duration limit”.

-1-C-3-e. There are reductions of up to 2% of ASM’s for RJ use based on how many aircraft we operate, which the NPA is claiming as a “gain”, but we are already over 100 aircraft and that section remained the same at 20% total ASM’s, 10% of which can be 79-86 seats (this is broken down into actual aircraft below).

-1-C-3-e-1. States that if the company isn’t growing AirTran ASM’s, that the number of ASM’s operated by an “express carrier” is limited to 75% of the above ASM limit, but LATER goes on to say that if a contract is already in place and our growth stops, that limit will not apply. In other words, we could set all these RJ contracts in place, then stop taking 737 deliveries indefinitely, and we would not be allowed to rescind those contracts OR stop deliveries of new RJ’s to the feeder AND, what’s worse, we have NO furlough protection in the event they decide to reduce the 717 fleet. Don’t take my word for it (or the MEC’s), read it for yourself, ZERO protection in the Scope or Furlough section in this scenario.

-ASM’s – this is very ambiguous, so here is the exact math: the currently-flown AirTran ASM’s were obtained using the company’s last-quarter 10k statement which is public information available on Yahoo! Finance. RJ calculations made certain assumptions on average stage lengths and legs flown per day based on ALPA numbers used at several regionals for negotiating purposes.

[FONT=&quot]o[/FONT]AirTran Airways flew 5.21 Billion ASM’s for the 3 months ending March 31st, 2007 (5,207,132,000). Divided by 3 is 1,735,710,667 (1.7 Billion) ASM’s operated per month.
[FONT=&quot]o[/FONT]An 86-seat RJ (a 90- or 100- seat aircraft configured to 86 seats with a business class) operates 6 legs a day on an average of a 600 mile stage length (2 hours, 10 hour per day utilization). 10% of the total current AirTran ASM’s above is 173,571,067 seat miles per month. Divided by 86 seats is 2,018,268 miles each 86-seater can fly per month. Divided by 600 SM average stage length is approx 3,364 legs per month. Divided by 30 days per month is 112 legs per day. Divided by 6 legs per day totals 19 of these 79-86-seat aircraft can be operated on property RIGHT NOW by feeder carriers. Doesn’t sound too bad. But do that math with all 20% as 70-seaters.
[FONT=&quot]o[/FONT]A 70-seat RJ (a 70-seater or a 90-seater configured to 70 seats with a business class) operates the same way as the 86-seater: 6 legs per day, 600 mile average stage length. Up to 20% of the total ASM’s can be 70-seat aircraft which equals 347,142,133 seat miles per month. Divided by 70 seats is 4,959,173 miles each 70-seater can fly per month. Divided by 600 SM average stage length is approx 8,265 legs per month. Divided by 30 days per month is 276 legs per day. Divided by 6 legs per day is a total of 46 of the 70-seat aircraft that can be operated on property RIGHT NOW by feeder carriers. That’s more than 25% of our total fleet size.

- They could put all those airplanes on contract, then completely suspend 737 deliveries. Didn’t we just defer some of our 737 deliveries and sell 2 others? If the RJ’s under contract are just as cheap to operate or cheaper on a “per-seat-mile” basis, why would they NOT do this? The answer is that there’s nothing stopping them from just this scenario.

- So, to recap Scope in our current market environment, we’d give up Q-400 turboprops just like Frontier pilots are suffering, give up to 25% of our fleet to be replaced by outsourced 70-seat RJ’s, and sign for up to a 40% pay cut for 90-100 seat RJ’s to come here. Is that the future “growth” you want at AirTran?

- Lastly, the MEC will tell you that the company doesn’t really WANT any of these RJ’s and you won’t see them under this contract. When is the last time you saw a company bargain for concessions in a contract and then not use them? Is there ANY language that protects us from the company “changing their mind” about using them sooner after they get more financial data for these aircraft and implementing a plan similar to the above? The answer: “No, there is NO protection in this T.A. for us to continue our current growth plan.”

SMALL JET PAY 78-100 Seats as it affects SCOPE

See SJ pay scale in T.A.

-FACT: EVERY SINGLE YEAR AND SEAT is less than jetBlue blended rates.

-FACT: EVERY major carrier who flies SJ’s on-property has a higher rate than our proposed rate.

-FACT: EVERY major carrier has better Scope language that this provides. These facts combined together, if ratified, will make us the lowest-compensated and lowest-scope major in existence for these aircraft.

 

[Lear70]

MERGER PROTECTION

-The T.A. does not include a letter from Richard Magumo, AirTran Holdings General Counsel, as the NPA has previously stated. Additionally, such a letter isn’t referred to as any “Appendix” item as the Scope language section does. Lastly, the letter, if it exists and if it is worded similarly, is utterly worthless as it does not STATE that Holdings will specifically honor it.

-From the 8K SEC filings, AirTran Airways isn’t buying anyone. AirTran HOLDINGS is purchasing Midwest Air Group. How, EXACTLY and SPECIFICALLY does the new merger language bind AirTran Holdings? The answer: it doesn’t.

-There is a lot of fear-mongering being circulated among the pilot group that we should ratify this T.A. largely because we have “no” merger protection in our current contract when, in fact, we do.

[FONT=&quot]o[/FONT]The FAA has ruled during the USAirways / America West merger, once controlled by one corporation, may NOT operate two separate operating certificates under one operating name and REQUIRED them to complete full integration of their operations in 24 months; AirTran would be similarly-bound or the FAA would face discriminatory practice suits.
[FONT=&quot]o[/FONT]Further, the mechanics for both companies were, in less than a year, able to petition and WIN single carrier status from the NMB (33 NMB No. 14), and we could do the same in our case, with this binding precedent in place.
-Our CURRENT Agreement DOES have merger protection language in it, as follows:

[FONT=&quot]o[/FONT]1-E-1 – Two key phrases, “the surviving carrier”, and “decides to integrate the pre-merger operations”. With the proposed Midwest acquisition/merger, the company has made public statements and filed 8k SEC statements that AirTran WILL merge the Midwest operations into ours and cannot go back on those statements. That, by definition, satisfies BOTH of the requirements in our CURRENT contract to trigger the integration portion of Section 1.
[FONT=&quot]o[/FONT]1-E-1-a – Requires the Company to use the NPA and MEH ALPA to coordinate the integration, and the NPA already has a Merger and Acquisition committee set up and working on the solution. This is the same solution as what is being touted as “new and improved” in the new T.A.
[FONT=&quot]o[/FONT]1-E-1-b – In the event the parties can’t come to an Agreement, the groups will go to binding arbitration as per Allegheny Mohawk. This is also the same solution as what is in the “new and improved” T.A.

-Since the company will be FORCED to merge the two companies operationally per these prior LEGALLY BINDING precedents, AND we DO have merger language in the contract already, what, SPECIFICALLY is the concern?

-The NPA is claiming that the Company could do what American Airlines did over a decade ago by keeping an operating carrier’s certificate and threatening to transfer assets back to that other certificate if a new Agreement wasn’t reached. First, that precedent is over a decade old with the newer precedents above to provide legal foundation against and, second, our current Agreement would prohibit such a move by Section 1-E-1, with AirTran as the “Surviving Carrier”. Those two pieces of evidence render this NPA argument baseless.

-The ONLY improvement in this T.A. is an 18 month integration window instead of the 24 month window the Company might have under existing precedent. Are ALL the other concessions in the T.A. REALLY worth 6 months extra integration time?

 

[Lear70]

Section 2 – General

-2-A-2-a-1 – This is the section the BOD claimed was such a “win” for additional association requests. It is basically a re-wording, with the only material change being an addition of 3 officers from a 2nd domicile, if later we ever have one. NO other material changes, as Par. 2-A-2-a-3 still allows the company to deny the Association leave request under the same exact terms.

-2-A-3-e-2 – This section “attempted” to clarify the personnel records, but did a poor job, with inconsistent language and unclear definitions. It basically says that pilots can have access to all 3 files kept with HR, the Chief Pilot’s Office, and Training. The Q&A later added there is a $10 fee to the pilot to receive copies.

[FONT=&quot]o[/FONT]NOTE: No clarification that, per the FOIA and PRIA, the HR file is the only file that “should” legally be sent to another company. Might be misconstrued as the NPA’s authorization to allow all 3 records, including non-PRIA reportable discipline (pilot letters in CPO’s file) to be included in PRIA requests. Not a “huge” loophole, just sloppy.

-2-B-2 – This is the Online Company Business Travel change. The rumors you have heard about no longer getting a window or aisle seat as a GUARANTEE are correct, although possibly overstated.

[FONT=&quot]o[/FONT]Adds language the simply clarifies at what EXACT time you can request a business class seat from the agent, if available. Not really a gain, and really 10 minutes prior to departure is a little late, the agent will be busy, and conflicts will arise.
[FONT=&quot]o[/FONT]2-B-2-a-2 – this is the language where we lose the ability to absolutely require the company to give us windows or aisle seats. It’s subtle, and reads “…must assign any available window or aisle seat…” meaning that if it’s not available, they don’t have to give it to you, i.e. move a non-rev or paying passenger to a middle seat to give you the aisle/window as under current policy.
[FONT=&quot]o[/FONT]The Q&A’s later in Sec 2 do NOT clarify this, and actually the company side-stepped the question neatly by re-directing to red-eye pairing deadheads (5-E-7-b-3 which is red-eye pairing scheduling ONLY).
[FONT=&quot]o[/FONT]Sec 5-III-9-A-2 does not exist in this T.A. so no help there for window/aisle seat.
[FONT=&quot]o[/FONT]Removed language requiring a seat in the “most forward section” of aircraft.
[FONT=&quot]o[/FONT]Added language in 5-E-7-b-3 which guarantees pilots deadheading to/from red-eyes be given a business class seat (the only *gain* I can find in this section).

*NOTE* - This is a HUGE loss to this section:​

-Removal of 5-III-9-B and re-written NOWHERE in this section or section 5, where it used to sit. You can now be left at the outstation for ready reserve if you had a scheduled deadhead at the end of your pairing!

-Section 5-III-9-B required the company to put you on the very first flight available if that deadhead was the last flight on the end of a pairing and was being used to get you back to domicile for release. THEY NO LONGER HAVE THIS REQUIREMENT!

-Jumpseat: This has been claimed as a huge *win* for the NPA but, in actuality, it guarantees absolutely nothing except a short-term change in policy which may, or may not, be changeable back to the old $25 fee for Other AirLine (OAL) pilots.

[FONT=&quot]o[/FONT]Specifically, the side letter signed by Steve Kolski that becomes effective only if we ratify this T.A., says that there is “a change to the Company’s jumpseat policy…” Go on to read Sec 2-E-2-b:
[FONT=&quot]o[/FONT]“The policy MAY be altered only if such alteration is DISCUSSED with the Association.” Basically, the company can change it back at ANY time, only has to discuss it with the Association, NOT obtain their approval, and the only Association recourse is to appeal the alteration to the COMPANY BOD.

-Passes: The wording in 2-G-4 changed slightly, but really does nothing to help us. Our pass system is the most archaic in the airline community, certainly the worst of any “major” airline, having no way to request off-line passes without going IN PERSON to a pass desk in ATL or MCO and even THEN they won't write it same-day, you have to wait 7-10 business days (in ATL she only writes them on Monday mornings). For those of us who write a lot of SWA or JB passes or don’t live in an AAI city, this remains a large irritation.

-No material change to any other wording in Section 2 except the addition of international security, presumably for Military Charters to 3rd world countries, and the wording is acceptable. Neither a gain or loss.

 

[CRJammin]

but, we'll give you a free TravelPro roller bag...just sign here! :smash:

 

[RIDETHELIGHTING]

Lear we need you on the BOD.

 

[Lear70]

Section 3 – Seniority

-No material changes to this section
-Adds specific items that the seniority list must contain
-Adds that the seniority list will be posted electronically (FLICA) every time there is a Vacancy posted (FLICA).
-Added that pilot protests to the seniority list will be made public so people can see if their bid would change if a pilot successfully protested the seniority list.
-Q&A clarified 2 things, neither in our favor:
[FONT=&quot]o[/FONT]If you request a Leave Of Absence and go to work for another carrier, you are immediately terminated without recourse (doesn’t apply if you take a voluntary LOA to keep someone else from being furloughed or if you are furloughed yourself).
[FONT=&quot]o[/FONT]Every time the seniority list is posted (every time a vacancy comes out), you have to watch the seniority list for errors, as you only have 30 days from the FIRST time they make an error. Otherwise, you live with it forever. Doesn’t appear to be huge, but certainly would be if THEY make a mistake with YOU.

 

[Lear70]

Lear we need you on the BOD.

Dude... I don't know if I have that kind of patience for the duplicity that MUST be happening behind closed doors.

I mean,,, how do you buy off on things like this? uke:

Incidentally, I meant to apologize to the other airline guys who keep having this thread bumped to the top of the list. It's pretty aggravating stuff, and I appreciate your indulgence while we work through it.

:beer:

 

[j41driver]

Thanks Lear! I'm off from work until the 10th...is all of this info being handed out in the crew room, road shows, etc? Great job! I second you for a seat on the BoD!

 

[bladeusa]

3rd. !

 

[Ty Webb]

We all owe you a debt of gratitude. Why our own BoD chose to endorse this thing is outrageous.