Airtran pilot staffing

[Britpilot]

For 400 million, why wouldn't it make sense for Delta to buy valuejet, then shut it down? It would be best for the industry as a whole. Atlanta wouldn't be a bad place! Oh but wait, I am sure our wonderful government policies wouldn't let that stand. They are obsessed with unreasonably low fares. It would be a catastrophe if we eliminated some competition, so as to raise fares. If our government would just let the weak wither up and die already, most of us would be better off, except for the traveling public anyway, but I don't give a damn about them, as the bottom 20% of them have no business flying anyway at the prices they are paying. So much for capitalism.

Shame we can't shut you down and make the world a better place.

 

[PCL_128]

after 9/11, you guys pulled together and (took paycuts?) so there would be no furloughs. any talk of that? I have a friend who is near the bottom .got on last dec ... thanks

I feel bad for your friend looking at a furlough, but there's not a chance in hell that we'll take any concessions. I'm already underpaid as it is.

 

[CitationLover]

I feel bad for your friend looking at a furlough, but there's not a chance in hell that we'll take any concessions. I'm already underpaid as it is.

here here. one can hope the remaining pilots at MEH feel the same way.

 

[Lear70]

I feel bad for your friend looking at a furlough, but there's not a chance in hell that we'll take any concessions. I'm already underpaid as it is.

I'm not so sure about that... especially if the company comes out and says they're looking to furlough 200-300 guys if they don't get "temporary cuts".

Besides the not-so-fuzzy response I got from PL, the letter from MB was pretty clear that he expects furlough announcement and company requests for concessions and didn't come out and say that the NPA wouldn't consider such a request. In fact, what he DID say was:

[FONT=&quot]Our goal is to work for a viable airline with a long-term future that will provide all AirTran pilots with a stable, healthy career. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT] That, to me, says they think they're coming and are going to take a serious look at it. That's one of the reasons I submitted my comments on the private board last night; want to make sure there's no mistaking my position in regards to DFR issues with any proposed LOA or T.A.

My issues aside, you're going to have a lot of scared pilots out there right now. There's going to be over 1,000 pilots on the street again by the end of the year and no one's really hiring, even the regionals; several of my Lear F/O's have interviewed and been tentatively hired by 4 different regionals, then put on "indefinite hold" for class dates.

You and I know pilot concessions are a drop in the bucket towards the making or breaking of a major airline, but we represent probably 5% of the pilot population (most of which are on this board which is why you get a 90% hard-line response on here, but only 40-60% when it comes to actual vote); most of them will vote for whoever has the loudest voice while still being a safe bet. That's why we were able to kill the T.A. last summer; "current book is better than the proposed T.A." people knew what they had and could continue to live under it until something better came along.

This is a different ballgame. Up to 30% of the seniority list is affected: Captains displaced to F/O, F/O's furloughed. Even if 20% of those voted No, you'd still have 25% of the total seniority list voting Yes to the cuts to save their jobs/positions. Then you have the 10% of the pilots who vote for "whatever is best for the company", no matter what. That's 35% of the pilot group. Say 5% more who don't want to be back on reserve with that reduction, and now you're at 40% of the pilot group voting Yes. All they need from the rest of the pilots is 1 in 4 of them to vote Yes for the concessions, and it would be done.

No one is going to stand up and fight it as vocally as we did, as they see what's happened to the person who last spoke out so vocally AND there's no "safe" ground to lobby from in this scenario.

Fear is a powerful motivator and, if concessions come to vote from the BoD, especially with a "recommend" endorsement and, IMHO, even with a "neutral" endorsement, I think it will pass. Not that I'm saying it should, I just understand the old ALPA adage that's true no matter what union you work under:

"Hearts and minds"...

 

[PCL_128]

I'm not so sure about that... especially if the company comes out and says they're looking to furlough 200-300 guys if they don't get "temporary cuts".

If they furlough 300, then I'll be in the line of fire, and I'll still vote NO to any concessions to supposedly save my own job.

Besides the not-so-fuzzy response I got from PL

Remarkable restraint on your part in responding to him. I probably would have gone off. The sad thing is that he's the BOD member that I trust more than any of the rest of them. If he thinks that way, then what are the rest thinking?

Fear is a powerful motivator and, if concessions come to vote from the BoD, especially with a "recommend" endorsement and, IMHO, even with a "neutral" endorsement, I think it will pass.

I'm not so sure. I don't doubt that the NPA BOD would agree to it, but I don't think the pilot group would accept it. The sentiment I'm picking up on the line, even from the senior guys, doesn't seem to be conducive to concessions. But I could be wrong.

 

[Ty Webb]

Hi, Lear:

Your analysis would make sense, but, unfortunately, you're not here to gage the mood of the pilot group; if you were, I think you would probably have a different impression.

No one I know is willing to take concessions. Two months ago, when the rumor was going around that the Company would ask for a pay concessions in exchange for no furloughs, the reaction on the line was not only "no" but "hell no". Even newhires were saying "no".

Also, management must be cognizant of the fact that they want every pilot here to be eagerly doing their part to save fuel, creating angered embittered and resentful pilots is not smart. . . that could cost a lot more than any perceived payroll savings.

We shall see . . . fasten those belts, folks, it could be getting bumpy up ahead.

 

[Ty Webb]

Pole-smokin' Pipe-jockey

If our government would just let the weak wither up and die already, most of us would be better off, except for the traveling public.

Hey, Pole-jockey, maybe we should have let DAL, NWA, UAL , MEH and USAirways die, since they all went bankrupt. Wouldn't that be the right thing to do, under your stated credo?

What a tool!

 

[Lear70]

For everyone's sake, I hope you two are right... Pilot concessions just don't make enough of a dent to make or break an airline. Never have. SkyBus is the perfect example of how little you can pay pilots and STILL have a failed airline.

Hope it's just a case of being "out of the loop" on this one, although I'm sure Scarlet will be around any minute to tell us how we're all wrong...

Gotta call you guys later and let you know the latest. Been keeping it to myself for a few days because, if I started talking about it, I'd probably say more than I need to on a public board. It's not the NPA, it's more company antics regarding me and DL and I don't want MB and other NPA reps getting a bunch of calls about it right now, as they're doing what they can and they're overwhelmed as it is.

 

[SkiFishFly]

Could it be...

Perhaps, the concessionary tone in what MB and the NPA put out (quoted by Lear earlier) was only intended to draw the company back to the table for negotiations. Make them think that the NPA leadership is taking a concessionary look at things in order to get the company to come to the table...

Not sure how a vote might go down right now - I do sense there are some that would rather give some up than have furloughs. I am of the "No Concessions" mindset.

I think there is potentially a lot of opportunity for us with all the cutbacks of other airlines. Especially, when you consider the fuel efficiency of our fleet compared to what others fly against us on most routes (MD-80s, DC-9s, RJs).

 

[PCL_128]

Perhaps, the concessionary tone in what MB and the NPA put out (quoted by Lear earlier) was only intended to draw the company back to the table for negotiations. Make them think that the NPA leadership is taking a concessionary look at things in order to get the company to come to the table...

Nope, couldn't be that, because they don't have to compel the company to the table. The law requires the company to come to the table as soon as the arbitrator is available. He's available for a few days next month, so the company has no choice but to show up.

 

[pipejockey]

Hey, Pole-jockey, maybe we should have let DAL, NWA, UAL , MEH and USAirways die, since they all went bankrupt. Wouldn't that be the right thing to do, under your stated credo?

What a tool!

Why yes actually! We should have. But that would create a better industry for those of us that work at the survivors, and higher fares. And our government cannot tolerate higher fares. They seem to think, as the 95% of the rest of the public, that everyone who has 2 nickels to rub together has a right to fly. As far as I'm concerned, the bottom 20-30 percent of travelers should not have the right to fly at the fares they are paying. Shouldn't there be a premium on being able to fly anywhere in the country in mere hours? Yet the cheapest way to travel is by air. Unbelievable! You'll pay more to travel by car, train, bus in most cases.

 

[717capt]

If they furlough 300, then I'll be in the line of fire, and I'll still vote NO to any concessions to supposedly save my own job.



Remarkable restraint on your part in responding to him. I probably would have gone off. The sad thing is that he's the BOD member that I trust more than any of the rest of them. If he thinks that way, then what are the rest thinking?



I'm not so sure. I don't doubt that the NPA BOD would agree to it, but I don't think the pilot group would accept it. The sentiment I'm picking up on the line, even from the senior guys, doesn't seem to be conducive to concessions. But I could be wrong.

Hey Lear and PCL,

I went back and re-read the exchange between Pete and Lear on the other website and Lear I don't see any reason for alarm. I think what Pete was saying is that you and DL are a priority for getting back but other events may be coming quickly that might mitigate LOA's or TA's or whatever to save jobs. Again I'm not privy to any inside info between you and the NPA but I don't think it's anything to be alarmed about. They did vote apparantly unanimously to send both cases to arbitration. I don't see how stopping everything and not engaging in talks with the company with what could be impending furloughs mis-reprepresents you or DL at all.

PCL,

Pete's a great guy. I've known him for years and you will not find a more stand up guy than him. I really enjoyed flying with him when I was an FO and now if the rumors are true it looks like I may be one again. I bet others that post on here will agree as to his character. A little exchange / disagreement don't mean a thing. He and hopefully the rest of the BOD, but most defiantely Pete truly has the best interests of the pilot group at heart. Great guy and lots of fun to fly with too.

 

[PCL_128]

PCL,

Pete's a great guy. I've known him for years and you will not find a more stand up guy than him. I really enjoyed flying with him when I was an FO and now if the rumors are true it looks like I may be one again. I bet others that post on here will agree as to his character. A little exchange / disagreement don't mean a thing. He and hopefully the rest of the BOD, but most defiantely Pete truly has the best interests of the pilot group at heart. Great guy and lots of fun to fly with too.

I'm sure he is, which is why I said I trust him more than the rest of them. But I completely disagree with him on this issue. Getting the hostages back should be priority number 1.

 

[Lear70]

Hey Lear and PCL,

I went back and re-read the exchange between Pete and Lear on the other website and Lear I don't see any reason for alarm. I think what Pete was saying is that you and DL are a priority for getting back but other events may be coming quickly that might mitigate LOA's or TA's or whatever to save jobs.

And that's why there may be room to negotiate our return, if the company needs cost savings quickly.

I'm the last person to stand in the way of any kind of "win-win" for the pilot group where the pilots would BENEFIT with NO give-backs to the company; that goes without saying.

But if the company NEEDS something, the NPA bears a DUTY (Duty of Fair Representation) to negotiate the return of hostages prior to implementation of any T.A. or LOA. There's legal precedent I won't go into, but I've been advised of the DFR requirements under this circumstance and I think PL needs to rethink his position.

Again I'm not privy to any inside info between you and the NPA but I don't think it's anything to be alarmed about. They did vote apparantly unanimously to send both cases to arbitration. I don't see how stopping everything and not engaging in talks with the company with what could be impending furloughs mis-reprepresents you or DL at all.

That's the problem. There's more going on behind the scenes than most people know about at the moment. Without going into detail, the company waited until the distance LOA was signed to "pull a fast one" that could easily add another 6 months to 2 years to DL and myself being on the street as "hostages". Would YOU like to be out 2-3 YEARS?

The NPA is fighting it through several avenues but, if those avenues fail, the ONLY way DL and I will see our jobs back for YEARS is if hostage return is negotiated into ANY T.A. or LOA. That's why I was so sensitive to his comments, and why I am HOPING his ideas are in the minority on the subject as far as the BoD is concerned.

There's no need to "stop negotiations". Quite the contrary, the NPA should hear what the company has to say, hammer out an agreement, and then tell them at the end that everything is contingent upon hostage return based on their violation of the status quo. It's all done in front of Tossi who will have his notes on what the company said on the subject last year and, if the company refuses to reverse their stance on their recent change in status quo, the union says "no deal" unless the hostages are returned effective immediately.

That's Union Negotiations 101. American JUST accomplished this a few months ago with one of their termination cases. It CAN be done in this environment, but it takes a union playing hardball to do it.

 

[RIDETHELIGHTING]

but most defiantely Pete truly has the best interests of the pilot group at heart. Great guy and lots of fun to fly with too.

He is a good guy, but he did vote for TA2-3 or what ever # we are on. But the biggest problem I have with him, he feels that scope is not important. I find that to be a big issue.