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.

 

[Ace McCoy]

Thanks

Nice work lear. very informative. You have shown me reasons #123 thru #132 to vote no.

The list is growing large!

 

[Ace McCoy]

Ha

I just went to the NPA site and noticed they posted a chart showing all the captain pay increases. Somebody is desperate to get the captains to vote yes..

Though they left out all the pay cuts those who can't hold 737 captain are gonna take when they get downgraded to the E-190

 

[Lear70]

[FONT=&quot]Section 4 – Compensation[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This overview omits pay rate arguments, simply because there is no argument. The NPA has already admitted that they are comparing our rates to a bankrupt carrier (Delta) that will, in all likelihood, gain 30-50% raises during our contract period.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The NPA has already admitted that our F/O rates are among the bottom of the industry.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The NPA has already admitted that there is no “GUARANTEE” that all the F/O’s will upgrade within 4 years, although NPA elected officials have stated repeatedly, in person and in writing, that this 4 year upgrade is the basis for accepting such sub-par wages.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The NPA has already admitted that they did not use the jetBlue blended rates when determining pay scales, especially the 79-99 seat jet rates, which makes all their comparisons baseless and useless.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We will therefore leave those facts about our “excellent” pay raises up to you to consider, and give you the following excerpts from Section 4:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]The paragraphs start out at O, continue to Z, then re-start at AA? They are incorrectly referenced throughout, more than likely because of the incorrect starting paragraph letter. The references in this paper use the incorrect ones since that is all that is available.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]4-P-1 – Longevity stops accruing now at 180 calendar days (removes 6 months reference).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]4-Q-1-b-2 – Market conditions to establish first year pay are not defined. First year pay will remain at $38.50 for the duration of the agreement since the company has nothing to force them to change it.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]4-Q-2-a – The 737-800 is now a Small narrow-body aircraft, as is the A320, which is a 13% pay cut if the company elects to change all future 737-700 deliveries to -800 deliveries or we merge with / purchase an airline that has A320’s.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]4-Q-2-b – The 737-400 is a LARGE narrow-body?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]4-Q-2-c – Widebody aircraft is a 28% override to existing SNB rates. This is still well under market wages for these aircraft types.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
·[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]4-Q-2-d – For any specific airframe not mentioned above, the Company will not operate any other type of aircraft on revenue flights until both the Company and the Association have agreed upon an appropriate aircraft classification (SNB, LNB, or WB). If no agreement is made, either party may submit the dispute to final and binding arbitration using the same procedures outlined in Section 1.P, Expedited Section 1 Minor Dispute Resolution. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]o[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]No aircraft mentioned falls into the category of 79-99 seats yet we still have pay rates for them. What classification would an aircraft with this number of seats be? If it is SNB then it should pay the same as the 737 and 717.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]o[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]If we were to classify Small Jets (SJ) pay in this category, it would require them to pay us the 79-99 seat pay even if we obtained jets and reconfigured them for less than 79 seats. With this sub-type undefined, it allows the company to immediately take it to EXPEDITED arbitration and say “We have different pay rates that get smaller with each size down of aircraft, so these 70-seat aircraft should pay even less than the existing 79-99 seat scale”. Dangerous loophole[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]4-R.2.b.1 – Still references duty period instead of pairing. This is just being sloppy since pairing is referenced in V.1.c. This was a source of problems in the past.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]4-R-2 – Maintains current 50% override for Extension pay, Down-line draft pay, and Junior Assignment pay AND language remains exactly the same, word-for-word.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Section S – pay computation. Here is where all the lettering errors come up and render the entire section useless for legal purposes. Additionally, they accidentally excluded Par Y – International override, into the pay matrix chart. This is also where they start referring to “Core” credit time instead of “scheduled block time”.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]4-T-1-a – Defines “Core” credit time as the 3-month look-back average from the same period of the preceding year.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]4-T-1-b – Every time we start a [/FONT][FONT=&quot]new city[/FONT][FONT=&quot] pairing, the Company gets to use the Dispatch calculated time averages to determine the initial “Core” credit time.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]4-T-b – This is the loss of door-close to “wheel movement” for determining of “out time”, and gives the 5 minute automatic “out” time start after door close (starts on the 6th minute).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]RESERVES:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Loss of minimum 3.5 hour cumulative pay on Reserve days whether given a flight assignment or not.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]There was a rumor that ALL pay credit goes towards minimum guarantee, i.e. if you don’t break guarantee on reserve, NONE of the extra credits go above your base pay, i.e. flying starting after your RR period end, etc. This is not true. Q&A specifically states RR pay goes ON TOP of monthly guarantee.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]4-U-2-a – Ready Reserve at the airport pays 4 hours ABOVE guarantee if you are not flown. One of the only Reserve gains, offset by loss of daily 3.5 credit.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]4-U-2-b – Ready Reserves given a flight assignment that is scheduled to DEPART (not operate) outside your original RR period will be paid 2 hours for time served in addition to the FLYING assignment.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

• • [FONT=&quot]If you are assigned a trip that starts INSIDE your RR period but goes 6-8 hours OUTSIDE the RR period, you get NO override.[/FONT]
  • [FONT=&quot]If you get a flying assignment that’s only worth 3 hours that STARTS outside your RR period, you only get a 2 hour override to the FLYING assignment credit, which is 5 hours total, NOT 4 hours RR plus 2 hours override.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]4-U-2-c – Confirms the ability of the company to assign you Ready Reserve duty at an outstation by confirming the deadhead pay for such an assignment.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]4-U-3-a – Allows the company to schedule a reserve pilot a reserve period (Telephone Availability Period) on a day off: “If a pilot is assigned a Reserve TAP after the initial monthly award … the pilot will be credited with 4 hours of pay.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Do not confuse the above with 4-U-3-d – “Reserves who fly on their day off as a result of the use of movable days are not entitled to extension pay.” The above section is FULLY INTENDED to make reserves usable on their off days even without the movable day off allowance.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]4-U-3-c – Loss of protection from downline draft with NO extra pay: “A reserve pilot who returns to domicile after a flying assignment is subject to further assignment as a Reserve and will not be paid overrides.” Includes the ability to schedule ready reserve AFTER a flight assignment for a Reserve pilot with NO additional pay.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[Lear70]

[FONT=&quot] Section 4, continued:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Lineholders Pay[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]4-V-5-b-4 – If you are trying to get back on your original trip and, on that first day, you don’t fly the minimum duty period guarantee (4.5 hour average), you are not entitled to it.[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Section 4.V.8.a.2 regarding late return to domicile states the following[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]o[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2) If they are returned in a new duty period on their day off, the Pilot will be paid extension pay rate for the new duty period. [/FONT]

• • [FONT=&quot]The above references extension pay while section 5-O-9-b-1 states we were junior assigned:[/FONT]

§[FONT=&quot]b. Delayed or Cancelled Flight which creates an additional duty period [/FONT]
§[FONT=&quot]The Pilot will be paid as if he had been Junior Assigned into a day off.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]o[/FONT][FONT=&quot]So is it an extension or a junior assignment? What is the “applicable duty period guarantee” in this case. [/FONT]
§[FONT=&quot]Let’s say you have a 2-day trip that was scheduled for 6 hours on day 1 and 6 hours on day 2, but was delayed and you timed out. You are then given an unscheduled overnight into day 3 with one leg back into domicile to finish. What is the duty period guarantee for day 3? [/FONT]
§[FONT=&quot]Since it is a multiple day trip it would appear to be 4.5 hours minimum. This means that you would get a 50% override for what you flew (the deadhead * 1.5) or 4.5 (no multiplier), whichever is greater.[/FONT]
§[FONT=&quot]Under the CURRENT CBA you would have gotten 6 hours minimum. This is a concession in pay due to lack of attention to detail.[/FONT]

·[FONT=&quot]4.V.8.2.a – Loss of compensatory day off except when you will only get a single day off in between pairings. Under the current Section 5 language, you get a compensatory day off if you are flown into a day off. Now you don’t. Concession.[/FONT]

·[FONT=&quot]4.X – No increase in vacation pay.[/FONT]

·[FONT=&quot]4.Y – International pay - $2.00 per hour CA, $1.00 per hour F/O override, does not apply in [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Canada[/FONT][FONT=&quot], [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Mexico[/FONT][FONT=&quot], or the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Caribbean[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (anywhere we can reasonably expect to fly). Useless override.[/FONT]

·[FONT=&quot]4.Z.1 – LVI – Concession to the company of an extra 5 hours per calendar quarter before they have to pay the LVI penalty.[/FONT]

·[FONT=&quot]4.Z.7 – Home study pay. Pays 3 hours for 6-8 hours of scheduled time. If < 6 hours scheduled time, pay will be ½ the course scheduled time, rounded up to each next half-hour. This saves the company 2-3 hours each year, per pilot, for recurrent training, while requiring us to be studying (working) the same amount of time we would if in ATL.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]o[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Note: Q&A says that you can CHOOSE to do the training at Alteon and still get the 4 hour minimum training pay. Good for people who live in ATL.[/FONT]

·[FONT=&quot]4.AA.1 – Trip Rig – still 3.5 * TAFB[/FONT]

·[FONT=&quot]4.AA.2 – Duty Rig – increased to 2:1 for each day’s duty period (the only gain in Section 4 other than pay rates).[/FONT]

·[FONT=&quot]4.AA.3 – Loss of 4 hour min day, goes to 4 hour min day for a day trip, but a 4.5 hour A[/FONT][FONT=&quot]VERA[/FONT][FONT=&quot]GE day for multi-day trips.[/FONT]

·[FONT=&quot]4.AA.3 – Monthly guarantee remains the same for line holders at 70 hours. Reserve pilots take concessions down to 75 hours of guarantee from the current 90-100+ hours credit under the current system.[/FONT]

·[FONT=&quot]4.AA.4.e – Confirms loss of 3.5 hour unused reserve period pay for Reserve pilots.[/FONT]

·[FONT=&quot]4.AA.4.f – [/FONT][FONT=&quot]CDO[/FONT][FONT=&quot] line holders can have CDO duty periods removed with no credit, such as if you took a weather or mechanical delay back inbound and didn’t have enough rest in domicile before the next CDO and were removed due to circumstances “beyond the company’s control” = no pay.[/FONT]

·[FONT=&quot]4.BB – No increase in Per Diem, now since 2002 until a new Agreement is reached, 6-7 years from now if past company practice is repeated.[/FONT]

·[FONT=&quot]4.BB.1 – Elimination of Day Dollars plan, reverts to $22 per month “Supplement for Professional Materials”.[/FONT]

·[FONT=&quot]Going to a “Core” credit time will ensure that block times in the bid packet are less than the customer schedule. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]o[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The NPA has publicly stated this averages a 6 minute loss per leg for EVERY pilot.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]o[/FONT][FONT=&quot]When you call in sick, have a flight cancelled or get reassigned it will be calculated using core credit. This will end up costing you credit time every leg.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]o[/FONT][FONT=&quot]This is a pay CUT that will directly reduce the hourly rate increases. [/FONT]

·[FONT=&quot]Loss of main door close will be a pay cut on every flight you operate that blocks over the “Core” credit time. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]o[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The NPA has publicly stated that from the time it takes to close the door, get the cabin ready, do the checklist and get clearance to push you are looking at 3 minutes on average for EVERY pilot on each flight that blocks over “core”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]o[/FONT][FONT=&quot]This is a pay CUT that will directly reduce the hourly rate increases.[/FONT]

 

[Lear70]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]Section 4 - last part:

·[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]So let’s do a calculation, based on a high-value trip where the Duty Rig and Trip Rig aren’t a factor so we can see EXACTLY how this affects us:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]o[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]If the loss of passenger schedule times is up to 6 minutes on every flight that we regularly UNDER-block, we will deduct from [/FONT][FONT=&quot]1[/FONT][FONT=&quot] to 6 minutes (max) for each leg that we under-block on this pairing.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]o[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]Alternately, if the loss of Door Close is up to 5 minutes for every flight that we OVER-block, we will deduct from [/FONT][FONT=&quot]1[/FONT][FONT=&quot] to 5 minutes (max) for each leg that we over-block on this pairing.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]o[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]The total of each of those on a leg-by-leg basis from current scheduled pay is the pay cut we take from these two rules.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Original Pairing: 4-day, 11 legs, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]23:36[/FONT][FONT=&quot] credit, TAFB 73:08 (20.88 trip rig), duty rig doesn’t apply[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Day 1, leg 1: Under block 5 minutes = -5 minutes[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Day 1, leg 2: Over-block 6 minutes = - 5 minutes[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Day 2, leg 1: Over-block 3 minutes = - 3 minutes[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Day 2, leg 2: Under-block 9 minutes = - 6 minutes (the most we said we’d use is the average)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Day 2, leg 3: Over-block 1 minute = - 1 minute[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Day 3, leg 1: Over-block 4 minutes = -4 minutes[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Day 3, leg 2: Over-block 9 minutes = 5 minutes (the most the book gives until the clock starts)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Day 3, leg 3: Under-block 2 minutes = - 2 minutes[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Day 4, leg 1: Under-block 4 minutes = - 4 minutes[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Day 4, leg 2: Under-block 4 minutes = -4 minutes[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Day 4, leg 3: Under-block 19 minutes = -6 minutes[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Total minutes lost under new rules: 45 minutes[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If done consistently throughout the month: 3 HOURS of pay on a 14-day off line (4 4-day trips).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If done consistently throughout the year: 36 hours of pay (half a month lost pay).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]o[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]How many legs do YOU do every month? We are being VERY conservative here: you have to remember the “Core Credit” mentioned above. These core credit times will be less that the normal scheduled block we have been flying. In fact they are the average time it takes to do that particular leg. It stands to reason that you will be overblocking more than you did in the past, which means the loss of door close will happen a LOT more often than in the above example.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[-9Capt]

Nice work Lear.

How's scheduling coming along?

 

[BILL LUMBERG]

Good work Lear.....good summary....

I'm pissed and I'm NOT at Airtran....Good luck guys!! Send it back!!

 

[Lear70]

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?

It will be as soon as I can get it all coalesced into one document and try to shorten it up as much as possible (no one wants a 50-page "synopsis).

Been getting some help on Section 4, Insurance, and Hotels and have to run the formatting and wording changes by those guys who wrote the other sections to make sure I don't put out something someone else disagrees with if they wrote that part.

Once I get the go-ahead, I'll go down to Kinkos, print as many as I can afford, and take them down to ATL tomorrow morning early and pass them out at the info sessions and "road shows" as much as possible before I have to go fly.

A couple other guys are volunteering to take copies to the road shows they are going to attend, along with stickers and such. Hopefully we can really get the word out over the next 3 weeks. 21 days and counting and they haven't opened the polls yet.

Great job! I second you for a seat on the BoD!

NNNNOoooooo... wife would kill me.

 

[Lear70]

Nice work Lear.

How's scheduling coming along?

Starting it as soon as I take a quick break for lunch. Been at this since about 7:30 this morning...

Wish someone else had done it, Scheduling isn't my forte' at this company yet... just haven't been here long enough to experience all the screw jobs that have come down the pike the last several years.

 

[Stewie]

Lear...Nice job. Let's get this thing defeated!!