jetflyer said:
Surplus,
You are right. I went back and read the proposal. It's very vague on the original MEMO of the proposal and actually doesn't address the longevity coming back.
It says "A PAY FREEZE, INCLUDING LONGEVITY INCREASES, FOR THE PERIOD OF THE CONTRACT"
Maybe he just word it vaguely on accident and meant to say after the contract expires June 2007, you get longevity increases? He really doesn't clearly say it there does he.
Maybe he's changed this part of the proposal.
Everything that has come out and the information I've heard after the original proposal paper came out has said the Longevity increases come back after June 2007.
I've talked with a union rep on this too, and he said Longevity would come back after June 2007.
Read the "Q&A session with FRED" on EPIC. They mention this on there as well about the longevity.
It says this "Our proposal calls for the longevity freeze to end after two years for the pilots and three years for the flight attendants."
This comes across much more clear than in the first MEMO from Fred.
So we will get back the longevity increases after June 2007. It's not great but the pay will not be frozen TOTALLY till 2010.
Jet
Perhaps you are correct. I don't have access to the private conversations between FB and the NC. What I do have is considerable experience in contract negotiations. I have learned that "proposals" seldom mean what they say and what they
don't say is far more important. Until we have the details, in writing, we have nothing but a lot of promises,
the biggest of which Fred doesn't have the power to keep. Granted, the "snap-back" is intended to cover the doubt. However, the terms of the snap-back, i.e., the "trigger" is as unclear as the rest of the proposal.
The
only thing in the "proposal" that is really clear is an extension of one year in the contract amendable date.
According to the "proposal" the "freeze" is
for the duration of the contract. That means that we would go into the amendable date with our pay "frozen" at 2004 levels. After 3 years + - of negotiations, it would still be at 2004 levels, unless we succeed, during negotiations, in increasing it. Translated to contract speak, that means we would be agreeing to a defacto 6-year freeze in pay rates
at a minimum (3 years from 2004 - 2007, plus 3 years of negotiations with no known result). Is this a recipie for another strike?
IF, as you say, longevity increments are "recovered" after 2007, what are the mechanics of that?
Once the contract amendable date has been reached, the RLA mandates maintenance of the "status quo". That means neither party can change anything (including longevity rates) while we negotiate for a new contract. How do we manage to get longevity increases without changing the "status quo"? Either Fred doesn't understand the RLA or this is hocus pocus. I suspect the former more than the latter.
In my opinion,
any "freeze" requires a time-certain as to when it ends. [That's the only way you can calculate the actual cost/benefit of the freeze.] When that time/date is reached, the contract returns to its pre-freeze condition. Translated to contract speak, the 6/22/05 (scheduled bump) would then take effect, thus taking us into Section 6 (and "status quo") with 6/22/05 pay rates instead of 6/22/04 payrates. The "agreement" we sign, if any, would have to specify that the "freeze" ends
before the new amendable date of 6/21/07.
If that does not happen, then the "freeze" becomes a permanent freeze of unknown duration and no increments in pay rates would/could occur until a new contract is settled. There is no way to tell when that might be. Therefore, there is no way to calculate the actual dollar value of the "freeze"; not to the pilots and not to the company. That's a very poor way to write a contract.
It's completly open-ended. If it was not Fred's intent to be that open-ended, then he will have to come up with a lot more detail than made clear to date.
No matter how you choose to "spin" this proposed "deal", i.e., good, bad or indifferent, as it stands we don't know what deal we would really be making.
The "proposal" is being sold by the Company as a means to ensure our job security. But, as it stands,
there is nothing in the proposal that provides any job security at all. Yes, we would get growth but don't kid yourself, we will not get job security (at least not from the way this "proposal" currently reads.)
In the current corporate structure Comair, as an entity, has no money of its own with which to buy/lease even one airplane. That has to come from Delta Air Lines. How do we know that Delta will do this and when will we find out? Will it be before we sign or after we sign? Fred has the power to commit Comair but does he have the power to commit Delta? How do we know that? How do we find out if Delta itself is
not a party to this "agreement"?
In the proposal, the "freeze" would begin with delivery of the
first new aircraft. What happens if delivery stops after the first 5 aircraft? Do we go back to our contract or are we stuck with a permanent freeze plus 30-month seat locks? Who is supposed to absob that risk, the pilots? Isn't that the same as rolling dice with our contract?
Even if we do get the "promised" 35 aircraft, what guarantees that any or all of them will not be transferred to another carrier in the future? Does Fred B. have the power to make such a guarantee when Delta is the owner of the airplanes? I think not. So I ask again,
where is the promised job security?
As I have said in earlier posts, I want to consider this proposal but I can't do that objectively in a vacuum. I'm all for "simplicity", but I'm not in favor of becoming a simpleton.
I am willing to invest in the job security of Comair pilots. If I do that,
I would like to receive job security in return. That's very different from a "promise" of security that cannot be fulfilled by the maker. But, I'm not at all eager to invest in promised growth, with no guarantees, and no real job security; all at a cost that I can't even calculate with the known information.
The "carrot" of the EMB170 is pleasing to the eyes and ears but it is still only a carrot. I believe that Fred genuinely "wants" that airplane and I understand why he can't openly commit to it at this time. Nevertheless, I can't forget my mother's warning --- "if wishes were horses, beggars would ride." This airframe is definitely a "bird in the bush", it is not a "bird in the hand". I'm sure you know the value of birds in the bush vs. a bird in hand.
At this point in time, all we have is a promise from a person that does not have the power to fulfill the positives of that promise, even if he sincerely wants to.
Unless this "promise" can be converted into reality during our talks, in my view, we have only two choices: make ourselves Las Vegas gamblers or reject this proposal. I do not like either of those options. I'm
willing to take some risks but I'm
not eager to gamble with our contract.
Is that an unreasonable position?
