AirTran pilots

[EMBATP]

as far as waiting for the 190s, i will give you this example....

continental express was not supposed to be the launch customer for the e145....some airline in austrailia was....next thing you know, who gets the airplane first? coex

if they want the airplane bad enough it will happen...

 

[Lear70]

Well, I guess they'll let anyone with ten bucks and a keyboard on flightinfo.com now, won't they? Willkommen . . . .

Hmmm... who's German?

It took 3 years to get 45 737 on the property, not four, and that means the 717 will be replaced under the life of this contract. . . . which means a 7 year B717 CA could be displaced into the RJ at $95./hour, or find himself on reserve on the 737 under those new rules. No, thanks.

It's better than that. Take a look at the proposed T.A.'s Sec. 6 regarding displacements:

6.F.7 - Displaced Pilots will bid for and be awarded ANY assignment THAT THEIR SENIORITY CAN HOLD. If a displaced pilot causes another pilot to be displaced, then that other pilot will bid for and be awarded any assignment THAT HIS SENIORITY CAN HOLD. The process will continue until all displaced Pilots have been awarded.

What the means is that as the Embraers come on board, the junior guys on BOTH the 717 and 737 start displacing each other in order to retain the higher pay as long as they can. Eventually, when the last 717 goes away, the most senior 717 Captain bumps the most junior 737 Captain, then the 737 Captains go down into an Embraer CA spot, then the most junior Embraer CA displaces the most junior 737 F/O, and the 737 F/O gets displaced to Embraer F/O.

Basically, you will give over 75% of the seniority list a pay cut in one way or another by the time this whole thing is over. NO ONE is safe, unless you're in the top 25% of the seniority list.

In addition, if they suspend the 737 deliveries while they do this, there is ZERO growth, and that 4-year upgrade they based the absolute CRAP F/O wages on jumps to 8-10 years.

Does anyone want to be a 7-10 year F/O here? I don't. Is the above scenario possible? Absolutely. Is it likely? Who knows. That's the problem, and we have to base our vote on the worst-case scenario, or you're just setting yourself up to be hosed if it becomes the company's "best interest" plan.

This TA is destined for the sh!tpile, where it so rightly belongs . . . . and my prediction is that it will be followed by a major house-cleaning at NPA, or the voting in of a truly national union.

Hope you're right... don't care one way another about NPA vs. Teamsters, but I really have NO urge to send the same guys back in to negotiate again. They're WAY to close and personally vested to this T.A. to really trust again in that position.

No offense, if any of you NC guys are reading this, but you REALLY, REALLY should have paid more attention to your Wilson Polling data. Thinking you somehow knew better and could bring something this substandard to us is pure egotism and has NO place at the bargaining table.

And you'd look good in a cell next to Parker.
.

Ouch. Dude... play nice!

 

[Wesb737fo]

Part of the issue behind taking 3 years to get 45 737's is the delivery schedule from Boeing.

Northwest has spooled up Embraer certificate addition and deliveries inside 18 months. It can be done if you want it bad enough.

That's the big problem. We don't *know* the company's plans, so we have to assume the worst. If we don't, we possibly screw ourselves, and most of us don't want to be back in the same old boat of trying to find a better job after ours turns bad.

Better to just keep what we have and start again on negotiations.

I just can't figure out why the N.C. sent us this thing. If I have the time to attend a road show tomorrow, I will do it and ask that question in person.

Lear, I agree with you 100% about companies negotiating concessions and not using them. If we sign this thing, then I would be shocked if we didn't see and E-190 deal ASAP. Shortly followed by a deal with an 86 seat RJ operator putting around 20 of those on property (for $100 /hr cheaper they can find the gate space)

Any takers on who they would get to do it. Republic? Who else operates E-170's or E-190's?

Would this happen overnight, surely not, but maybe over two or three years.

I heard a couple of line pilots say they want these aircraft to supplement growth not replace it. I heard another pilot say "The leases on the B-717's aren't up for years". Once again, if you could operate an 86 and 100 seat jet for 30-50% less labor cost, wouldn't you find a way out of those leases.

Somebody please point out the flaw in my thinking. I don't want to dictate to the company on how to grow the business, but if we are going to be flying these 100 seaters, we should get a better rate and we shouldn't farm out any flying over 70 seats (including turbo-props)

 

[pilotinfo]

The NPA has been made aware that there is a call to engage in delay of flights and other activities directed against AirTran Airways, Inc. Please be aware that the National Pilot's Association disavows any such call or action and the NPA neither authorizes or condones any effort to incite or encourage a job action. The NPA further asks that anyone encouraging or considering such an effort cease doing so immediately.

Captain Allen Philpot, President-National Pilot's Association

 

[ultrarunner]

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...

Dropped the ball???? That would be the membership, right? Your MEC are elected officials, right???

Not sure of the type of logical response you're looking for. It's your MEC. Obviously the do not speak for you. So, have you and your members started the recall process?

 

[ultrarunner]

The NPA has been made aware that there is a call to engage in delay of flights and other activities directed against AirTran Airways, Inc.

Hold on...let me get this straight....the Airtran pilot union's own people negotiate a TA and the membership doesn't like it, so it's going to take it's anger out on the entire company.

You have GOT to be joking!

What was that I said about unions headed down the toilet?

Now you know why!

 

[USARET]

The NPA has been made aware that there is a call to engage in delay of flights and other activities directed against AirTran Airways, Inc. Please be aware that the National Pilot's Association disavows any such call or action and the NPA neither authorizes or condones any effort to incite or encourage a job action. The NPA further asks that anyone encouraging or considering such an effort cease doing so immediately.

Captain Allen Philpot, President-National Pilot's Association

Allen, the only thing that I have heard is in the works is an effort to recall you and the rest of the BOD /NC once this TA is voted down. I don't believe that qualifies as an illegal job action.

 

[newnan]

The NPA has been made aware that there is a call to engage in delay of flights and other activities directed against AirTran Airways, Inc. Please be aware that the National Pilot's Association disavows any such call or action and the NPA neither authorizes or condones any effort to incite or encourage a job action. The NPA further asks that anyone encouraging or considering such an effort cease doing so immediately.

Captain Allen Philpot, President-National Pilot's Association

bump.....

 

[Lear70]

Dropped the ball???? That would be the membership, right? Your MEC are elected officials, right???

How does the membership drop the ball on negotiations when we are not the ones negotiating?

We stated what we wanted in the Wilson Polling, we had an extremely good voter turnout for the last BOD President election, and up to 10% of the pilot group had answered the call for informational picketing, even though the BOD wasn't emailing directly and asking people to volunteer directly.

That's as much as we, the membership, should really be accountable for. If the BOD doesn't follow the direction of the Wilson Polling, then it's not the Membership that's to blame.

Not sure of the type of logical response you're looking for. It's your MEC. Obviously the do not speak for you. So, have you and your members started the recall process?

Yup. 3 different recall efforts went out last week. Trying to consolidate them under one mass effort and trying to make sure they don't get overzealous and recall the ENTIRE BOD.

We don't need that kind of instability. Replace the ringleaders who engineered this P.O.S., replace the NC, take 4-6 months to get all our ducks in a row, then start again.

Yes, we're taking action to fix it. That's what a responsible membership does when the elected officials go off on a tangent unsupported by the Wilson Polling data, i.e. the membership's direction.

 

[ultrarunner]

Lear, thanks for your response. Has anyone actually sat down with your NC and asked them what their motivation was? Not that it matters at this point, but it's possible you could replace them with folks that will have the SAME motivations.

It would seem a simple matter to oust the ring-leaders and simply elect the replacements AFTER CAREFUL SCREENING. Then you know exactly the message which would be delivered by your NC.

 

[Lear70]

Hold on...let me get this straight....the Airtran pilot union's own people negotiate a TA and the membership doesn't like it, so it's going to take it's anger out on the entire company.

You have GOT to be joking!

What was that I said about unions headed down the toilet?

Now you know why!

Hold on there, kemosabe... That's not what happened.

1. The company is using posts here on Flightinfo as basis for that "claim" by the company that there is a work stoppage being incited amongst the pilot group. Go back and read all the threads; NO ONE is saying to do ANYTHING job-related in response to this T.A. or in response to anything else.

2. I've been flying the line, am one of the people heading up the VOTE NO resistance, and I haven't heard a D*MN thing about any kind of job action. People are angry, but most of us are angry at the NPA, not the company.

3. There is absolutely NO reason to start any kind of work action at this point in time and we would NOT do so without being released per the RLA. Right now, we have not been released from the mediator into self help. Right now we really don't NEED to be released by the mediator into self-help, as this has all happened at this company before during the LAST round of negotiations. Bad T.A. comes out, gets voted down, new T.A. comes out, gets voted in.

No one has advocated ANYTHING other than voting this down and returning to the table with new negotiators and some changes in union leadership, all per the RLA. Period.

Incidentally, this isn't a public message board, it's a PRIVATE message board. You have to apply and pay for access and agree to abide by the rules of the forum and can be removed at any time with no recourse. If you don't do those things, you can't see or respond to the posts, so the company can't claim we're posting thoughts or opinions which are contrary to the best interest of the company on a PUBLIC forum... we're not.

The claim that people on this board are inciting people to illegal action per the RLA is unfounded, unsupported, and ludicrous.

 

[Lear70]

I do, however, have to give Kudos to the BOD for responding to the company's bag tag and sticker memo that came out on Crew Trac last week.

The letter from our attorneys was direct, concise, and let the company know, in no uncertain terms, that it was discriminatory to allow one set of tags and stickers for 2 1/2 years then suddenly decide they didn't like the new sticker and bag tags which simply advocated voting NO and returning to the table, not to mention a violation of the RLA to prohibit our ability to discuss pros and cons and vote without interference.

First good thing I've seen out of the BOD since last year. THAT'S the kind of response that lets the company know we aren't putting up with that kind of foolishness. Good job.

 

[Lear70]

Lear, thanks for your response. Has anyone actually sat down with your NC and asked them what their motivation was? Not that it matters at this point, but it's possible you could replace them with folks that will have the SAME motivations.

Yes, they have. Some of it can be discussed, some of it can't.

The long and short of it is:

1. They're scared what the company will do in a merger, which most of us understand is ridiculous and completely unfounded.

2. They're scared the company will be released into self-help and impose the contract THEY want and dare us to strike, believing we won't. According to the numbers we have, we DO have the solidarity to strike, should we be released.

3. They really think the pay is OK, even in light of the pay cuts from work rules and they don't understand just how badly we could be affected by the work rule changes if the company decided to really push the envelope. They've shown they don't understand by having absolutely NO response to our concerns when backed by actual T.A. language.

They're basically scared and don't want to fight anymore and risk the unknowns of merger or mediator action. Well, too bad. Life's not without risk, and I believe the odds are in our favor.

It would seem a simple matter to oust the ring-leaders and simply elect the replacements AFTER CAREFUL SCREENING. Then you know exactly the message which would be delivered by your NC.

That's the idea. Have to get one thing done at a time. First reject the T.A. with as good a NO vote as we can get. Second, clean house. Third, go back in with new people, new priorities, and keep the troops rallied while they're still good and P.O.'d.

 

[Lowrider717]

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.

What if they cancel a turn and you have 5:01 or more before your next leg. Not a scheduled, not really reassignment, just a cancellation. Under current contract this exact situation has happened to me maybe 3-4 times (6.5 yr capt) and I've been able to get a room provided. The Q/A doesn't address this particular, but is SUGGESTS that if the whole five plus hour delay(till the next leg) occurs up front, then you'd get the room. I guess we just assume that.

Doesn't matter, I'm still voting NO.

Awsome job on the analying LEAR & CO. Good work.

The BoD should have invited just such scrutiny (like an FAA NPRM) before endorsement. I guess they were in too much of a rush.

Maybe its just me but the NPA made a big deal about how many extra pages of Q/A there were. Is that because of the bigger font or spacing? They still seem lacking to me.

 

[captainj]

at no time was I trying to sugest anything but voicing my displeasure at the threats by the cp. any action implyed by this post would only be free speach. unlike the threats by the cp office trying to stop influance this election through threats of time off work for talking or displaying our view on this ta.