Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

AirTran pilots

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top