AirTran pilots

[Yuppyguppy]

Let me guess..."Coach" said you could not have the tag on your bag. I love to kick his ass

 

[Lear70]

Threatening wasn't my experience, we were involved in a true back and forth Q&A. As I said earlier, it was eye opening. I don't doubt your word about how you felt, but go and make them answer for that one-on-one.

They've backed off the scare-tactics and false information, to a certain extent, because they were getting a lot of backlash out of it.

I called them, point blank, on the complete amateurish way the whole announcement and follow on to the TA was handled (among many other actual contract related items). They admitted many mis-steps. Also, they were quite candid on some of the concessions and where they saw the realtive gains from those. Again, I'm not drinking the cool-aid (on either side) nor am I befuddled by "smoke and mirrors" as you put it. I read the TA (every word), I read Lear's points, again word for word. I just went the extra step and went to the source for further information.

I'd actually like to hear what they had to say, as the two times I've been in the "info sessions" I haven't heard any positive spins on the concessions that really can be proven in black and white.

However, you're doing EXACTLY what all of us should do.

Read the T.A. Read the pros and cons from each side's point of view. Go to the road shows and ask the hard questions and demand straightforward answers. Then go back and read the T.A. and pros and cons again.

Only then will you be in a position to make an informed decision.

Basically all I was saying earlier is that the contract we work under now, and in the future is a legal document. Unfortunately, in our profession it is coupled with A LOT of emotion. I think, and I don't want to speak for him, but Lear's postings are aimed at looking at this logically, and I was doing the same, the best way I know how. Everyone has to do the same, the best they know how as well.

You're absolutely right, it IS full of emotion. We are emotionally vested in these careers because we have sacrificed and through blood, sweat, and tears have made it here where we *thought* we didn't have to look any further for our careers. When you threaten people's Quality Of Life, of course they're going to get emotional.

We have to stay focused in not getting upset at each other. Personally, I believe this T.A. is going to fail. If you are in the "fence sitting" camp, but believe it will fail anyway, then help us out and give us more numbers to show at the bargaining table when they go back - a bigger NO turnout is more negotiating capital.

If not, then vote your conscience, and go spend some time with your family, as what will be, will be. Good luck to everyone, and thanks for reading my rants. :beer:

 

[T3700]

Maybe I'm missing it, but I can't find any limit to the amount of airport appreciation time they can schedule us for. Combine this with a 13 hour day and we can be assured of plenty of free ready reserve time (on the last day of the trip)

 

[captainj]

but with a 13 hr day at would have no reason to make us sit RR. We all know they would do every thing possable to minimize our sit time.

 

[Lear70]

Maybe I'm missing it, but I can't find any limit to the amount of airport appreciation time they can schedule us for. Combine this with a 13 hour day and we can be assured of plenty of free ready reserve time (on the last day of the trip)

For lineholders, it's in there, but only by merit of the 5 hour hotel clause.

As a lineholder, if your last leg back to domicile from a trip is a deadhead, they can leave you at the outstation for up to 5 hours before your deadhead has to depart. 5:01 and you can make them give you a hotel room for this. 4:59, you're sitting in the terminal in uniform in a chair somewhere. Current book prohibits this by saying they have to put you on the first flight out to return you to base.

As a reserve, they can now sit you for up to 6 hours without a hotel and call it a "ready reserve assignment". There's no requirement for the departing flight to leave from the outstation coming back within that 6 hours either and no hotel provision for the reserve pilot, so they could technically fly you one leg out, sit you for 6 hours, then make you wait another hour or two for the next flight scheduled after your ready reserve sit.

Those are extreme examples using the maximum boundaries (or lack thereof) in the verbiage, but the possibility is there, and if they ever need to use it for operational integrity, you can bet they will.

Senior pilots are NOT exempt from this, as there is NO guarantee they will build pairings with less sit time. In fact, because of the 4.5 Average Day, you can bet that when our peak travel seasons are gone (Fall and Winter), you WILL get

- 3-day trips with 6 hours day 1, a 24-30 hour sit in an outstation hotel, then 6 hours day 3, worth 13.5 hours instead of the 16 we enjoy now.
- airport appreciation on almost every trip which will leave you reassignable.
- deadheads at the end of trips and being left at outstations on the last leg for hours.

This is what happens when productivity goes down... they save money by parking the crews but still leaving them open for utilization. It's happened at EVERY airline that has gone to an average day that's not very high.

I also find it interesting that we compared wages to bankrupt Delta, and they have an average day but it's well over 5 hours. Again, why do we not get "industry average" in some areas, when we're forced to take it as a concession in others?

OK, back to work...

 

[captainj]

fod walk

lets all help out the cp office and volunteer for the fod walk. they have been so helpfull this last week with the TA!

 

[AFcitrus]

Talked to a BoD member today. After I very calmly asked him what the hell he was doing endorsing this pig, he said the following and I paraphrase:

"After I voted in favor of it, I realized I had buyers remorse.... We (BoD members) have gone to AP and told him in no uncertain terms that they had made a mistake and he should ease up on the sell..."

I asked why they rushed to endorse something without having Q and A's in writing, reading it carefully over several days and thereby blowing all the pre-MEH meeting leverage we had. He said something about the company doing a masterful job of leaking the TA agreement and that they were "forced" to send it to the pilots. I couldn't figure that statement out.

- You mean Kolski put a gun to their heads and said "endorse this POS or die"

I also started to delineate all of the concessions we made. When I got to the DH window/isle/forward cabin guarantee he said it was an improvement. He said we now get Business class seats. I promptly said I think that has something to do with DH to a red-eye and he said no - it is for all DH.

These guys had no idea what they endorsed. Only now that a few (hundred) people have informed them of what they missed are they "backpeddling".

Guys - Everyone reading this needs to email all BoD members and demand that this TA be put out of its (our) misery. Having talked with a few people, I don't think we are even going to vote on this at all. The sooner we demand this from the BoD, the sooner that decision will be announced. The company and AP already know that this is DOA. They don't want the embarrassment of having this show up on the front page of the USA today. Let's kill it, replace the NC and AP, and install people who care.

 

[ultrarunner]

This is incredible. The company brass must be laughing everyday...you got the union members pissed off at their own MEC...you got 'em pissed off at their own NC.....

I bet the company just loves this $hit!

Is it any wonder why unions are going down the $hitter?

This is a great example.

 

[Lear70]

This is incredible. The company brass must be laughing everyday...you got the union members pissed off at their own MEC...you got 'em pissed off at their own NC.....

I bet the company just loves this $hit!

Is it any wonder why unions are going down the $hitter?

This is a great example.

And you think we should be congratulating them and buying them beers for bringing us a contract that is concessionary in almost every section?

Who SHOULD we hold accountable? Obviously someone dropped the ball here, so who do you replace to make sure it doesn't happen again?

I'm waiting for a reasonable response, given what WE are going through...

 

[snuba]

For starters AP should be recalled and the neg. committee replaced. It is an absolute tragedy we have such a worthless TA. After going thru this very concessionary TA I have no confidence in our union as it stands now.

 

[T3700]

The only place I can find five hours and they have to give you a hotel, deals with time between pairings, not between flights. Can you tell me where you found the five hours between flights? (five hours is too long anyways)

 

[Lear70]

That's part of the problem, they use a lot of language interchangeably and have NO definitions section in this T.A. like our current CBA alots for.

But, what you're looking for is in Section 20 - hotels:

20.4 - "Hotel rooms will be provided in the following instances:"

20.A.4.c - "Where scheduled/reassigned ground time is expected to exceed five (5) hours at any station at the time of assignment or reassignment".

So yes, it's still in there, just a different place than what you're looking at.

 

[Lear70]

One of the main things that irritates me is their use of misdirection, like on the NPA site right now under the Contract 2007 page, they have this new, pretty chart that shows what you will make over the next 4 years of this contract including your longevity increases.

The problem is that they're not showing you what you will make under current book over the next 4 years, they're just throwing the big numbers out of the proposed rate increases over current book.

For instance, a 3-year CA now makes $106.30 an hour. 4 years from now, if we didn't get a new contract, that CA would be on year 6 pay making $123.50 an hour. That's an increase of 13.18%

You look at their chart and it shows the proposed increase in 4 years at $140.17 versus current book at $106.30 is a 31.87% increase, but you were going to get 13.18% of that anyway, so this contract only gains you an 18.69% pay raise over 4 years.

If you take 3 years of no COLA raises at 2.5% per year to be conservative, is 7.6% cumulative. Take that out another 4 years is 18.86% for 7 years of ONLY COLA raises.

So, in terms of pure spendable money after you cover the increased cost of food, utilities, gas, etc, you will only see a roughly 13% increase over 4 years, or 3.3% per year Longevity raise for the term of this T.A.

And that doesn't count the work rule concessions of 3-5% of base pay.

We might actually end up in the hole unless we work more days per month if the line construction changes and they take full advantage of that 4.5 hour average day.

 

[captainj]

my phone wont stop ringing. short captains 8 open trips at 7am all reserve gone. I dont even want to come in for my trips why would I ever want to fix there problems.

 

[UALX727]

Lear,

I was explaining the same thing you just said to a buddy of mine in the crew room yesterday. The pay raise percentages are very misleading. What you have to do is really look at the difference between where you would be in 4 years on the current contract, and then compare to where you would be in 4 years under the new contract. For example:

I am a 5 year captain, under current book I make per hour:

2007-120.01 (5 yr. cpt)
2008-123.50 (6 yr. cpt)
2009-127.15 (7 yr. cpt)
2010-131.87 (8 yr. cpt)

Now we look at what the new rates would be if the TA passes:

2007-129.13 (5 yr. cpt)
2008-136.06 (6 yr. cpt)
2009-143.03 (7 yr. cpt)
2010-149.21 (8 yr. cpt)

The NPA chart shows that I would make a gain of 24.33%. They get this figure by taking a current book 2007 cpt pay of 120.01 (current 5 yr. cpt pay) and compare it to the new TA cpt pay 4 years down the road of 149.21(8 yr. cpt pay).

And yes, they are correct, the chart shows an increase of 24.33% over 4 years. However, this 24.33% assumes that I stay at 120.01 an hour over the next 4 years. We all know that this will never happen, as I will continue to get yearly pay increases under the current book, that will take me up to my current book 2010 pay of 131.87. They got this 24.33% by taking 120.01 and comparing it to 149.21. So the difference is a 29.20 an hour gain, or 24.33%. Not realistic, assumes a pay freeze for the next 4 years.

If you really wanted to know what the true increase actually is, using my example, you would have to take where you would be 4 years down the road on current book (131.87/ hr) and compare that to where you would be 4 years down the road under the new TA (149.21/hr). Doing the math, you really only gain 17.34 an hour. This is the true comparison as to where you would stand under the current book vs. where you would be under the new TA 4 years down the road.

In this case, this represents a real gain of 14.45% versus the 24.33% that the NPA put out, thats a HUGE difference!!!!

I believe every Airtran pilot needs to do the same analysis on their own situation, some may be bigger or smaller than this. Like I said, this is the situation of a 5 year captain(my present position).

Like you said Lear, looking at the concessionary stuff in here, the lack of COLA raises for the last 2 years, this isn't much of a raise at all. And that's not even taking inflation into account.

The NPA needs to compare apples to apples....right now that chart is pumping this thing as a huge pay raise when it isn't. The only guys this chart is accurate for are the senior guys who aren't getting any more raises under current book. In that situation, the chart would show accurate raise percentages. So in essence, the senior guys would be benefitting big-time if this thing goes through.