AirTran pilots

[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.

 

[DC10]

UALX727,

You'll never make anywhere near those figures promised in the new TA. If this thing goes through, you, me and every other year 4-7 captain will be flying a shiny new EMB-190 that will replace all the 717s, at greatly reduced small jet payrates.

My vote is NO for ANY TA containing small jet pay scales, regardless of whatever else is in there.

 

[Flyingdutchman]

what are the competetive mins these days at tran?

 

[Murphy]

I did the comparison of current book vs proposed TA through 2013 and it was just over 6% more money. 8.7% pay increase and then I deducted 2.5% for the work rule changes. I looked at Jan to May to look at the work rules. You have to apply all the work rule changes at once and you have to take AP's word that core block is a 6 minute loss per leg. You can't just say door loss is this % loss, avg day is this much, core block is this %, and the duty rigs are this % loss and add them all together cumulatively.

Observations:
- Door impacts you if you overblock
- 2-1 duty rig never kicked in. If you work 10-12 hrs, you are going to fly more than the 2-1 rig, at least on the 717.
- 4.5 avg day kicks in on poorly constructed trips but the 3.5:1 trip rig protects you, but you still lose money. This will probably impact the 737 side more with the west coast flying.
- Core block really impacts because then the change in door payment kicks in on the lower block time.

Don't get me started on the reserve rules. Moveable days. Change the days three days prior. Moveable days two days prior to two days after your scheduled days. Ready reserve and follow on assignments after a flight assignment. Not signing up for that ever, not ever.

 

[UALX727]

The actual percentage rate that I came up with is simply looking at where you would be in 4 years at current book vs. where you would be in 4 years with the TA.(For myself, it was 14.45% raise. The NPA said I would see a 24.33% raise which is not accurate).

The 14.45% raise was strictly the hourly increase I would see. I see what you guys are saying, you would now have to adjust this number to reflect all of the givebacks. This would decrease it even more (door close giveback, core credit time stuff, reserve pay givebacks, and even then look at the inflation rate going forward, and take into consideration the COLA raise we never recieved over the last few years).

To be fair to the 12 year plus guys, they would not get the yearly raises the rest of us would get on the current contract going forward, so maybe it isn't as big of a gain for them as I originally thought.

I also agree, we should not cave on the scope. Why do we need to give that up??? At this point I truly believe that our current contract is actually a better deal than the TA. Currently we keep the scope stuff, keep the door time, keep the reserve system, no doctors notes, no 3 times not recommmended for checkride BS, and a bunch of other stuff.

I am voting no. I haven't heard anything else to convince me otherwise. I haven't gone to a road show and I see no point to it. The cave on the scope and the reserve rules make it an automatic no.

 

[Lear70]

That's great work, guys. I'm just happy people are really analyzing this stuff rather than just buying off on what I say or what the roadshows are saying...

Spread the word!

DC10, I'm right there with you, as I believe that's EXACTLY what management has planned, starting with the Embraer orders in 12-18 months then the phase-out of the 717's beginning in the next 2-3 years.

 

[UALX727]

Here is another scenario that could be played out a year or two from now with those new small jet pay scales:

Company to Union: "Guys, we want to replace all of the 717 flying with the E-190. We can operate that airplane at an even cheaper CASM than we can on the 717."

Union to Company: "No, we don't want that. All of our 717 guys will be bumped over to the lower paying E-190 payscales."

Now company can play let's make a deal.......

Companies response: "Well, let's see here. We would consider not buying the E-190's if we could just get our CASM down on the 717 to near where it is on the E-190. Hmmmm...... If we could figure out new 717 payscales to bring our CASM down to the E-190 CASM, we may consider keeping the 717's ."

Now the union is forced to either reduce the payrates on the 717 to keep them on the property or face replacement with the E-190's and the much lower payscale.

These lower payscales help the company in two ways. First, it puts the union in a bind to be whipsawed by the threat of the E-190 and it's horrible rates. Secondly, it gives the company leverage to get a much better deal on the 717's from Boeing if Boeing believes that we truly want the E-190.

And all along the company really just wants to keep the 717's, and is using the E-190 as a tool to negotiate concessions from the pilot group and Boeing.

 

[twepilot]

anyone know facts about when the leases are up on the 71's??

RV

 

[CitationLover]

anyone know facts about when the leases are up on the 71's??

RV

the 25 MEH one's are 20 yr leases with the first expiring in 2023.

from the air tran annual report

We lease 79 B717 aircraft through various lessors, under leases with terms that expire through 2022. We have the option to renew the B717 leases for periods ranging from one to four years. The B717 leases have purchase options at or near the end of the lease term at fair market value, and two have purchase options based on a stated percentage of the lessor’s defined cost of the aircraft at the end of the thirteenth year of the lease term. Each of the leases contains return conditions that must be met prior to the termination of the leases. Forty-one of the B717 leases are the result of sale/leaseback transactions. Deferred gains from these transactions are being amortized over the terms of the leases. At December 31, 2006 and 2005, unamortized deferred gains were $59.7 million and $62.4 million, respectively. We also lease facilities from local airport authorities or other carriers, as well as office space under operating leases with terms ranging up to 12 years. In addition, we lease spare engines and certain rotables under capital leases.

 

[UALX727]

Good point on the leases. I imagine there has to be some loophole or clause that would let them dump the 717's early, maybe with a penalty of some sort. But in general, everything is negotiable if the price is right. I am sure they could work something out with Boeing on the 717's in exchange for more 737 orders.

My main point is that we don't want those small jet pay rates in the TA at all. This just gives the company leverage in the future against the NPA.

Or another scenario, which I saw used at a regional that I once worked for, is to use the "carrot jet" scenario. Basically, the company tells the union that they are going to get E-190's (in our case). They say that AirTran pilots can fly them or they can contract it out to (insert name of regional airline). However, (regional airline X) will fly them for rates below ours. So if the AirTran pilots want to keep the flying, we need to lower our small jet payscale even further.

The union doesn't want to see the flying get outsourced, so eventually they cave and AirTran pilots get the flying at an even further reduced pay than what the TA shows now.

 

[CitationLover]

Good point on the leases. I imagine there has to be some loophole or clause that would let them dump the 717's early, maybe with a penalty of some sort. But in general, everything is negotiable if the price is right. I am sure they could work something out with Boeing on the 717's in exchange for more 737 orders.

I doubt boeing would allow them to simply dump them for Embraer. Even a few more 737's isn't going to help.

Don't know why everyone has a hardon for the 190, it has what seems a very low dispatch rate. jetBlue and USAirways are not happy with Embraer right now.

My main point is that we don't want those small jet pay rates in the TA at all. This just gives the company leverage in the future against the NPA.

Or another scenario, which I saw used at a regional that I once worked for, is to use the "carrot jet" scenario. Basically, the company tells the union that they are going to get E-190's (in our case). They say that AirTran pilots can fly them or they can contract it out to (insert name of regional airline). However, (regional airline X) will fly them for rates below ours. So if the AirTran pilots want to keep the flying, we need to lower our small jet payscale even further.

The union doesn't want to see the flying get outsourced, so eventually they cave and AirTran pilots get the flying at an even further reduced pay than what the TA shows now.

I doubt it. It appears 70 seats has been the breaking point with mainline. If management keeps posting profits then what economic sad story can they muster? With the Embraer 190 with 717 pay rates it still saves them labor costs as there is one less FA. Republic only pays a little less than US Airways in terms of CA pay (a lot less on FO), so I cannot see too much in savings for going to a regional operation. Stand your ground, you already have small narrowbody pay established in the 717 rates.

All the more reason for no relaxing of the current scope (in fact tightening it).

MEH offer extended to August 10th.