AIRTRAN has a TA ?!?!

[PCL_128]

Not trying to flame guys but isn't 60% low for FO pay? I thought fo's always made 65-70% of Captain pay?

60% is actually considered industry-standard for FO pay. You'll find that most contracts have ranges of around 57-63% of CA pay for FOs. Of course, first-year pay is usually the exception to this rule. AirTran's FO pay has always been below this level, so if they've achieved 60%, then that's a pretty good gain on the new TA. Of course, that's only part of the equation, and I hope that everyone looks at Sections 1 & 5 very carefully also. Don't become the next Delta with 49% of your flying being done by feeder carriers.

 

[Lear70]

Well,,, I hate to say it, but from the information that's initially leaking out, it doesn't look very good (this is all from the recurrent luncheon with Allen Philpot last week and some phone calls I made last night).

There's not very much of a raise on the CA side (not even COLA from the last 3 years to bring you guys back up to the same money you were making when the current book became ammendable. That doesn't sound right to me...

The 4 hour hard day is going away in favor of a "daily average" that can be anywhere from a 10-20% pay cut depending on what the daily average is and how they build the lines (AP mentioned something around the 5-5 1/2 hour Daily Avg).

The 12 hour duty day is going to 13 and I haven't heard a good reason why or what we got back for it.

The reserve pay system is going away, which for 10% of the pilot group is a 25-30% pay cut. In "exchange", they're talking about a 75 hour guarantee FOR RESERVES and an extra day off. That's a 5 hour increase and the ability to work another day and get 6 more hours MAYBE to try to get back 25-30 hours of credit. Lose 30 hours of credit, get back 11. Good move? I think not.

I'm also hearing some other scheduling givebacks that are disappointing, such as STILL not REQUIRING the company to make their reserve use transparent to the pilots (letting them pre-assign open time), no inclusion of hard definitions of "adequate reserve coverage" (which means still no fix to SAP in FLICA), or requiring the use of certain numbers of short-call, long-call, and home-reserve pilots. We have an 8 hour callout in our current contract but they don't use it because they don't want to and we can't force them to, so what good is it?

They're saying to make sure we tell everyone to "look at the package as a whole". I'm here to tell you that you can wrap a turd in the absolutely prettiest packaging available on the market, and guess what you'll still have? A stinky, useless mess.

Not passing judgment until I see it, but at least I know what sections to go look at first.

Incidentally, I'm told it has excellent M&A language, a SMALL bump in retirement, and we were able to keep 100 seat jets in scope, but not the 70-seaters.

The company knows everyone is freaked about the Midwest deal and SCOPE is the hot button topic of the day, and they are hoping the VERY SMALL bumps in pay, (3-4% for CA's, 10% for F/O's initially but small raises later), .5% in B-fund, and good M&A language will push it over the edge and get it through.

Either way, please, please, please make sure you READ EVERYTHING and THINK that you're going to live under this document for the next DECADE of YOUR LIFE.

/rant

 

[Jonny Sacko]

I'm sorry to hear that, but good for you to see through the smoke screen. Crap is crap. The company will give themselves raises, if there is any money left-over on the table. They don't care, it's just business.

 

[SkiFishFly]

Well,,, I hate to say it, but from the information that's initially leaking out, it doesn't look very good (this is all from the recurrent luncheon with Allen Philpot last week and some phone calls I made last night).



Incidentally, I'm told it has excellent M&A language, a SMALL bump in retirement, and we were able to keep 100 seat jets in scope, but not the 70-seaters.


Either way, please, please, please make sure you READ EVERYTHING and THINK that you're going to live under this document for the next DECADE of YOUR LIFE.

/rant

Sooo, they can farm out anything up to 99 seats?

Someone wisely mentioned read it from the company perspective...

 

[WalterSobchak]

AirTran may has a TA...but do they has a flavor?

 

[Max Powers]

If the scope thing is true that is horrible. Just think a new order of emb-170 or 190s and guess what boys and girls your not flying them. Also loss of Min day usually is a 4-6% pay cut when you do the math.....So that 10 percent gain for FOs is actually a 4 percent gain which ain't even cost of living. NOT GOOD. Never thought I would say this but I hear ALPA calling my name of course wait until after the merger. But 1.75 for a loss of our precious 12 hour day.

Oh and don't forget Analyst are predicting AirTran to be making record profits in the next 5 up coming quarters....we are talking an EPS (earning per a share) of over 1 dollar thats a record for us and that would mean a quarterly profit of over 100 million dollars looks like our CEOs are getting some massive raises for hood winking us.

 

[scarlet]

Say no to the 70 seat flying--why not make it where Airtran pilots fly them? yeah not going to make 737/717 pay but get the airplanes because they do make money--90s--but keep it in the family...

I believe you work more than 4 hours aday anyways most of the time--or the company is doing poor planning...

Just wait and see what it looks like--but SCOPE is a big thing---DELTA=49% to CONNECTION carriers that SUCK !!!!

 

[j41driver]

Who is this scab union leader you're talking about?

I have no idea who he is...you're the one who said there's a scab in the MEC.

 

[Lear70]

Sooo, they can farm out anything up to 99 seats?

Someone wisely mentioned read it from the company perspective...

That's the word. And here's the kicker.

Let's say AirTran buys 100 seat jets but configures them with a business class. They say it's for "customers to have a seamless appearance between the different aircraft".

They then have the aircraft configured for 86 coach seats and 10 business class seats. That's under the 100 seat restriction, so they get to farm those out.

Personally, my vote is an AUTOMATIC NO VOTE for scope that doesn't include anything more than 50 seats being flown BY US!

As an aside, someone mentioned that there is POSSIBLY an A.D. coming out on the 717's lowering the engine TBO to 6800 instead of 10,000 hours (I haven't verified this yet). If that happens, possible Adios to the 717's sooner rather than later and they replace them with outsourced RJ's and we lose our jobs.

Extreme? Maybe. But yet another reason not to give up ANY scope for aircraft larger than 50 seaters.

You'd think we as pilots (again) would have learned that lesson by now.

 

[BR715]

I totally agree with Lear 70. This scope thing is ridiculous. Back in the day when we had dc-9s the flight attendants were negotiating a contract and they removed to rows of seats in the back of the airplane to get from 106 seats to down to just 100. This is the kind of crap this place will always pull. I will vote no on anything that allows an outside organization to fly anything bigger than 50 seats. And the rumor about this average day crap, give me a break. Sounds like skipper has negotiated another crap contract. I'll fly under the old contract until I retire before I let some kid in 70 seat rj take my job.