Alaska pilots - please think twice before you vote!

[PCL_128]

Do you fly for Alaska Airlines?

I thought I'd made it pretty clear that I don't.

Did you read the 292 page TA?

Yes.

You don't believe in the senior vs. junior conspiracy theory? Just look at the major vs. regional debacle, or the age 65 bull $hit. If ALPA or the senior guys really cared for the junior guys, do you think that we would have such a huge disparity between the regional world and the majors?

The "major vs regional debacle" has nothing to do with the senior not caring about the junior. Outsourcing couldn't have happened without majority ratification of scope concessions. By definition, majority means it can't be all senior guys. In fact, most agreements with scope concessions were ratified by huge margins, meaning tons of junior pilots voted for them.

As for Age 65, as much as I hate it, the numbers don't support your assertion. The National polling data showed that some of the most junior pilot groups supported the change while some relatively senior pilot groups opposed it. Probably a result of younger pilots being more "progressive" in their beliefs on what they might consider age discrimination.

What I'm saying is that, IMO, there are things that need to be tweaked and it's no disgrace for the NC to go back to the table.

"Tweaking" doesn't really justify rejection of a TA. If you get 85% of what you want in a deal, that's a pretty damned good deal. There is a lot of risk in going back to the table after rejecting a TA. It should only be done when the TA is truly awful. I vote against a TA at my company (AirTran) because it was a truly terrible TA. Your TA is pretty good. It's just not perfect. Big difference.

I can't see how the mediator would punish us if we as a group voted this down. The mediator's job isn't to ratify a TA, but to work with both sides to agree on a TA; he did that already. So, to say that the mediator will park us if we don't ratify this TA doesn't make sense.

The mediator doesn't make the decision, the NMB does. If the NMB believes that you've turned down a very good deal and that you're making unreasonable demands, they will park you. After looking at your deal, I would find it very difficult to justify demanding higher payrates in this environment, being the first in the bargaining cycle, so you can only imagine what the NMB will think about it. If you were down the line in the bargaining cycle and spring-boarding off of several other good agreements, then you could demand more and still appear reasonable, but not when you're the first out of the gate. What the NMB will probably do is park you, and then after a couple of other pilot groups have accepted a deal similar to what you're turning down, they might consider giving you a chance at negotiating something better. That's about the best you can hope for if you reject this deal. Is it worth waiting another 2-3 years for a slightly better deal?

 

[igneousy2]

As I read it, the TA allows the geezers to freeze their A plan and go with the 13.5%. They would reap all the benefits from the A plan and still stuff the 13.5% into their coffers for 5 years. No incentive to leave at all.

Exactly...vote no.

 

[Ih8AFYesmen]

I thought I'd made it pretty clear that I don't.



Yes.



The "major vs regional debacle" has nothing to do with the senior not caring about the junior. Outsourcing couldn't have happened without majority ratification of scope concessions. By definition, majority means it can't be all senior guys. In fact, most agreements with scope concessions were ratified by huge margins, meaning tons of junior pilots voted for them.

As for Age 65, as much as I hate it, the numbers don't support your assertion. The National polling data showed that some of the most junior pilot groups supported the change while some relatively senior pilot groups opposed it. Probably a result of younger pilots being more "progressive" in their beliefs on what they might consider age discrimination.



"Tweaking" doesn't really justify rejection of a TA. If you get 85% of what you want in a deal, that's a pretty damned good deal. There is a lot of risk in going back to the table after rejecting a TA. It should only be done when the TA is truly awful. I vote against a TA at my company (AirTran) because it was a truly terrible TA. Your TA is pretty good. It's just not perfect. Big difference.



The mediator doesn't make the decision, the NMB does. If the NMB believes that you've turned down a very good deal and that you're making unreasonable demands, they will park you. After looking at your deal, I would find it very difficult to justify demanding higher payrates in this environment, being the first in the bargaining cycle, so you can only imagine what the NMB will think about it. If you were down the line in the bargaining cycle and spring-boarding off of several other good agreements, then you could demand more and still appear reasonable, but not when you're the first out of the gate. What the NMB will probably do is park you, and then after a couple of other pilot groups have accepted a deal similar to what you're turning down, they might consider giving you a chance at negotiating something better. That's about the best you can hope for if you reject this deal. Is it worth waiting another 2-3 years for a slightly better deal?

A real fortune teller. I give.

 

[Fubijaakr]

Actually, PCL is a LOT more engaged and involved than YOU appear to be. You've bought into the webboard "reasoning" as enunciated by S.K. and the rest of his acolytes.

Perhaps you should think a little more long term.

 

[Ih8AFYesmen]

Actually, PCL is a LOT more engaged and involved than YOU appear to be. You've bought into the webboard "reasoning" as enunciated by S.K. and the rest of his acolytes.

Perhaps you should think a little more long term.

One thing I do notice about the "yes" crowd is that you guys tend to get quite emotional and judgemental. Enjoy pointing that finger while it lasts, old man.
As for S.K., he is a h*ll of lot smarter and informed than you will ever be. He can be a little too passionate behind the keyboard at times, but he brings up some good points. Truth hurts and reallity sucks, doesn't it? He's done more for the furloughed guys than any one of us have, so don't get all high and mighty.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

One thing I do notice about the "yes" crowd is that you guys tend to get quite emotional and judgemental. Enjoy pointing that finger while it lasts, old man.
As for S.K., he is a h*ll of lot smarter and informed than you will ever be. He can be a little too passionate behind the keyboard at times, but he brings up some good points. Truth hurts and reallity sucks, doesn't it? He's done more for the furloughed guys than any one of us have, so don't get all high and mighty.

Sometimes it seems like S.K. has done more for furloughed pilots than ALPA has.

 

[check6]

To me, this section might as well say, "Can we give your job to a 'regional?'"

Don't forget about SCOPE! The rest of your contract might look fine and dandy on paper until you realize you've forgotten about scope.

Keep the potential 100 seaters within the airgroup one way(AS) or another(QX).

 

[Ocity]

Sometimes it seems like S.K. has done more for furloughed pilots than ALPA has.

"SK" is entitled to his opinion like everybody else. However, I choose not to live my life, year after year, in a constant state of critique and longing. Believe it or not, sometimes I've got better sh*t to do than think about that stupid eskimo. You know, "better sh*t" like...um, i don't know, living my LIFE?!!

"these are the days of our lives" don't waste 'em.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

"SK" is entitled to his opinion like everybody else. However, I choose not to live my life, year after year, in a constant state of critique and longing. Believe it or not, sometimes I've got better sh*t to do than think about that stupid eskimo. You know, "better sh*t" like...um, i don't know, living my LIFE?!!

"these are the days of our lives" don't waste 'em.

I can't read everything he writes either, but I think his heart is in the right place.

 

[Fubijaakr]

One thing I do notice about the "yes" crowd is that you guys tend to get quite emotional and judgemental.

Emotional and judgmental? Let's read the rest of YOUR post and see whose pot is calling whose kettle black.

Enjoy pointing that finger while it lasts, old man.

Emotional and name calling in one sentence. Well done, pup.

As for S.K., he is a h*ll of lot smarter and informed than you will ever be.

I guess that is an opinion in the eye of the beholder. All I hear when I read his tripe is a lot of name calling and fearmongering. Like the last post of his..."If we vote for this contract it'll mean 240 more furloughs and 120 downgrades." Man, I want a look in his crystal ball. Maybe he should use it to predict the next stock market upswing.

He can be a little too passionate behind the keyboard at times, but he brings up some good points.

Except for the fact that NONE of his points have any basis in reality. I guess its easier to stand on the sidelines and throw rocks at the volunteers who are giving time and effort instead of getting involved.

The best thing about S.K. is every time he posts one of his diatribes, he generates more YES votes. For that, I thank him.

Truth hurts and reallity sucks, doesn't it? He's done more for the furloughed guys than any one of us have, so don't get all high and mighty.

Yeah, he sure has. Every furloughed pilot is getting what, $40 a month from his "fund". Since there are no accounting controls no one knows how much he's taking in, do they? Maybe he should be know as "Scam King."

 

[Mamma]

Yeah, he sure has. Every furloughed pilot is getting what, $40 a month from his "fund". Since there are no accounting controls no one knows how much he's taking in, do they? Maybe he should be know as "Scam King."

Fubi, jj,
That was a real lame comment and pretty unjustified if you know SK. Sure he rants a lot but your comment was pretty below the belt. He has not done anything to you...well maybe he has but he has at least done it to your face rather than accuse you of being a thief while hiding behind an anonymous screen name. You should be ashamed.

 

[Ih8AFYesmen]

Damn Fubi,
You should put down that crack pipe before you open your cake hole about someone you know nothing about. Do you even know S.K. personally? Fabricating stories about one of our own is pretty damn low. We all have our differences but please don't back stab one of our own, especially on a public forum. That's a new low. Now, what was that about being emotional? Hmmm.

 

[wscrj]

Fubi, totally out of line. Be a man and apologize. You may not see eye to eye with him, but the man has ACTUALLY done something to try and ease the burden on the furloughed folks. Can you say the same?

 

[dashtrash]

Emotional and judgmental? Let's read the rest of YOUR post and see whose pot is calling whose kettle black.



Yeah, he sure has. Every furloughed pilot is getting what, $40 a month from his "fund". Since there are no accounting controls no one knows how much he's taking in, do they? Maybe he should be know as "Scam King."

Spoken like someone that's given zero! Sick.

 

[igneousy2]

"Tweaking" doesn't really justify rejection of a TA. If you get 85% of what you want in a deal, that's a pretty damned good deal. There is a lot of risk in going back to the table after rejecting a TA. It should only be done when the TA is truly awful. I vote against a TA at my company (AirTran) because it was a truly terrible TA. Your TA is pretty good. It's just not perfect. Big difference.

Your logic is screwed up.

So let me ask you...what percentage is okay. 51%, 70%, 85%?


You are mesmerized by the hourly rates and your brain ceases to function.

You have to look at the WHOLE package.

Also you have to compare it to what WE (Alaska) already have and not what you (Air Tran) currently have.

If they gave us everything we wanted and all that was left was these substandard pay rates then I would agree with you.

However, this is not the case as previously mentioned.

The main thing is that we are giving up a substantial amount of the retirement program for new hires.

You need about a 12-15% mandatory company contribution to match what an A-plan gives you using a conservative diverse portfolio. We ALREADY have an A-plan and a 3% mandatory contribution DC...so in my view any talk of a DC replacing an A-plan better have a mandatory contribution of between 15-18%...or it is in fact concessionary.

We would be BETTER off to get parked under the current contract then to be living under this new retirement system going forward.

This is not some noble effort on my part...this is purely selfish. I don't REALLY give a damn about the new hires. I don't know who they are or when/if their will be new hires. I have only my own self-interest at heart.

I have a LOT of years left and I know that if we agree to this contract we are going to give up a LOT of negotiating capital in 2013, 2017, 2021, 2025...trying to equalize the benefits for the two classes of pilots that this TA creates.

At some point the "have nots" will represent the majority...do you not think they will approve a "TA" with a pay freeze for senior captains, do you not think they will gladly impose a hard freeze on our A plans so that the company can afford to give the FO's raises.

I am voting AGAINST this TA. We are better off with the status-quo.

 

[igneousy2]

What would make me vote yes...

1. New Productivity improvements limited to times when nobody is furloughed.

2. Give new hires the same option that we will get. Right now option B seems to be the obvious choice because option C does not give you enough money. If they want people to choose C let them put out more carrots.

3. Get us back to pre-kasher by the end of the contract even if it means signing a 5 year deal to do it.

These tweaks would make a huge difference to me and I don't think we are that far from it.

 

[igneousy2]

Why I belive that "getting parked" is just a scare tactic that we should ignore...

1. We are better off under the current contract in the long run then the TA.

2. The companies creditors and investors HATE unknown variables and as long as our contract is open with the threat of future labor strife as well as unknown cost going forward lowers our credit worthiness and investment potential.

3. The company hates unknowns...it is far easier to run a business successfully (read - large bonuses for executives) if as many unknowns as possible are made known. Look at how much money we spend on call options on oil futures just to know what we are going to pay for our fuel.

I would even go so far as to say that the company is under more pressure to get a deal then we are.

Anyway, vote no

 

[Wally]

Line. Crossed.

Fubi, you had some good retorts. Then you went off the deep end.

Fubi, totally out of line. Be a man and apologize.

Agreed

 

[eskimopilot]

"Yeah, he sure has. Every furloughed pilot is getting what, $40 a month from his "fund". Since there are no accounting controls no one knows how much he's taking in, do they? Maybe he should be know as "Scam King.""

Disgusting statement. Do you have ANY proof of your accusation? If not I suggest a public apology is in order.
I also don't agree with everything SK says, but a difference of opinion would never lead me to a conclusion like yours.
Until I get information from our Union on the status of the Furloughed Pilot Fund I will continue to contribute to SK.

 

[SneakyJake]

I am in line with Igneous's comments about the retirement. I still am not sure why the TA was put to us with loss of the A plan. It seems like a deal breaker for some. I don't think they will be surprised when it is put back to the table. The retirement is not a bottom line for the company and I am sure they are prepared to reopen that section.