ASA MEC endorses TA/Bonus formula published...

[GearUpLightsIn]

I just hope to GOD everyone is paying even half as much attention to the language of our TA as everyone seems to be paying attention to a lame-a$$ bonus formula! I have been asked several times at work what I think of this formula, but no one has said anything about the ACTUAL contract. I understand we don't need to talk about it here, but I don't get the impression that people are thinking a lot about the CONTRACT that we will be bound by for the coming years.

 

[John Pennekamp]

I just hope to GOD everyone is paying even half as much attention to the language of our TA as everyone seems to be paying attention to a lame-a$$ bonus formula! I have been asked several times at work what I think of this formula, but no one has said anything about the ACTUAL contract. I understand we don't need to talk about it here, but I don't get the impression that people are thinking a lot about the CONTRACT that we will be bound by for the coming years.

That was management's goal by offering a signing bonus. It distracts everyone from the real issue. And it seems the union fell for it hook, line, and sinker. But that's the situation we have.

You're 100% correct. We as a group need to look past the money and evaluate the contract on its own merits.

 

[79%N1]

Exactly....and voting on the TA based on the signing bonus is crazy in that if we vote this down over that, we lose (for who knows how long) the other more important gains achieved. While the TA is not perfect, we have made many gains in pay and QOL that it would be nice to finally receive.

 

[ohplease!]

The deal is flawed BECAUSE it is neither a "signing bonus" nor a "retro pay."

Here's why:

1) If this were a real RETRO PAY, it would be fair to pay FO's 60% of captains since that is roughly the pay rate ratio. BUT RETRO PAY WOULD BE ABOUT TRIPLE THE $13.5M! ie: it would pay each pilot the difference between the old and new contract, since the amendable date. The proposed payout is NOT "retro pay." Then why the 60% ratio?

2) Signing bonus should pay each pilot on the list the same. One vote=one bonus check.

What we have is some silly hybrid formula which appears to be "logical" but is really just a big smokescreen obscuring the real issue:

WE ARE GETTING SCREWED!

I really hope the training dept. adds a logic and critical thinking exam to the upgrade requirement before you get a chance to upgrade. With thought processes like yours, I'd be afraid to fly with you.

 

[sweptback]

It really is amazing what a little money does to otherwise rational people.

 

[twott driver]

It really is amazing what a little money does to otherwise rational people.

Well there is the problem for those complaining, isn't it?

 

[Texx]

I really hope the training dept. adds a logic and critical thinking exam to the upgrade requirement before you get a chance to upgrade. With thought processes like yours, I'd be afraid to fly with you.

I flew with an FO last month about to upgrade AND he is going to be an IP. Isn't that the path a current chief pilot took?

 

[601Pilot]

What is going to be the Date of Signing?

Hold on there buddy, us "NO" voters will have something to say about that. Hopefully I can find about 900 friends by 11/20. There is a lot more downside than upside to this agreement for me.

 

[scarlet]

601 Good luck with the 900 thing..What are you wanting. I know it is not perfect but alot better than we have. And when P.Davis likes the Sched. section then it must be ok(if you know P.D.)

ALPA gets 2% of our bonus?

 

[ASA_Aviator]

I flew with an FO last month about to upgrade AND he is going to be an IP. Isn't that the path a current chief pilot took?

Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Speedtape]

Hold on there buddy, us "NO" voters will have something to say about that. Hopefully I can find about 900 friends by 11/20. There is a lot more downside than upside to this agreement for me.

Make that 899 by 11/20. I am in your camp. The scheduling section is an abomination. WE have to vote this thing down and replace the negotiatiors. Is this Sec 13 the same one that they thought was so great for the past 18 months?

Who will join and make it only 898 by 11/20?

 

[scarlet]

I know what it says, What do you want it to say?

 

[Ineedabrew]

Make that 899 by 11/20. I am in your camp. The scheduling section is an abomination. WE have to vote this thing down and replace the negotiatiors. Is this Sec 13 the same one that they thought was so great for the past 18 months?

Who will join and make it only 898 by 11/20?

Not me brother. Goodluck. I vote yes

 

[ASADriver]

Voting yes. Big raise for me. Some of you whiners will never be happy.

 

[rightseatjocky]

Voting yes. Big raise for me. Some of you whiners will never be happy.

AMEN TO THAT !!!!!

 

[HoserASA]

Ya'll better read the scheduling section in detail before you vote yes! If you do vote yes, look forward to 5 day trips. It's in there, among many other bad things. Look beyond the bonus and pay raises ASA pilots. Voting NO!

Hoser

 

[Texx]

Nothing wrong with that.

hahaha...yeah,right.

 

[scarlet]

Voting yes here !!! You can do a 5 day trip now,if you didn't know that, and all airlines can extend you to make it a five day trip-FYI

Hoser and all you other people yelling about the sched. section why don't you call someone in the know.like P. Davis he can tell you more than we can !

 

[scarlet]

In Dallas we had 5 days several times-they can make you do a 6 day at all airlines,(not reasonable for the airlines) Wait on the road shows and ask them if what you want is even doable?

 

[GeekMaster]

Ya'll better read the scheduling section in detail before you vote yes! If you do vote yes, look forward to 5 day trips. It's in there, among many other bad things. Look beyond the bonus and pay raises ASA pilots. Voting NO!

Hoser

In a conversation with BOTH my capt reps, I mentioned this issue regarding Pete, the scheduling committe et.al. Here's the answer I got.

The power invested in the scheduling committe chairman is done so by our current elected reps. This representative has a place or say so in scheduling line construction. He/she is put there to look out for the best interest of the pilot group and reports to the MEC. His/her power is NOT UNCHECKED. While he/she "does" have the power to approve 5 day trips, it is when and only when it is believed to be in the best interest of the pilot group. If the scheduling rep does approve such trips, he/she answers directly to the MEC. (better be a darn good reason was the exact quote from a capt rep)

Another consideration; 5 day trips are totally legal right now. THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN USED. They were implemented for a while on the CR7 when it flew out west. The new TA actually IMPROVES their implentation because we actually have a say on when and how they're used as opposed to what we have now.

Would you complain about a line built with 5 day trips if it were constructed as follows? 5 days on, 5 days off, repeat for a total of 15 on 15 off with say 27 hours each for a total of 81 hours and commutable on both sides. For good measure consider the possibility of duty rigs boosting the credit value a little....or not.

I'm simply saying that in a cafeteria format, if "some" choices like that were offered, I have a feeling there would be some who would LOVE to have them. (though not me, I just see the value of the choice)

I WOULD NEVER want this to be the norm or majority of the line construction. That's why I would want a rep in there helping to keep the cafeteria menu varied for EVERYONE. I agree Hoser that NOONE should have too much unchecked power. Perhaps others might also consult with our reps regarding how much empowerment and accountability is being given to this scheduling chairman postition.