CMR on the move

[AV8700]

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.

Your right. It never was. This was Surplus's spin on things.


If so, what kind of a freeze (or pay cut) did he take when he came to Comair?

A 10% reduction in pay to include management. It was on the original letter.

Make sure its a 10% reduction in TOTAL compensation!

 

[surplus1]

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?

 

[surplus1]

This was Surplus's spin on things.

Tim, I suspect you're an excellent pilot. However, if you think what I'm saying about this proposal is "spin" you're a lousy negotiator and we're lucky you don't work for CMR.

 

[Tim47SIP]

However, if you think what I'm saying about this proposal is "spin" you're a lousy negotiator and we're lucky you don't work for CMR.

Me Too!

Surplus, you unequovocally have an agenda. Yourself! With your very informative 10,000 word diatribes, you always come accross as the nay sayer. You preach one thing and one thing only. Management is alway bad, out to get you, and anything they say is a conspiracy to ultimately screw you. Well, you may be right as far as your personal experiences entail. But, contrairy to the sky falling, this is not always the case. If you conveniently sway the opinion in the negative before the details are known, you are cutting off a very important negotiating tool, trust.

Look, you are a wealth of information for the not so informed, but sometimes you have to let a new management team present the proposal in good faith. Your MEC and CNC will re-propose and if agreed on, so be it. If Fred fails or renigs, you don't have to trust him again and you can yell out "I told you so"! But portraying him effectively as a lying- cant be trusted classic management type is rediculous. Individuals like you build huge protection walls around you that efectively stonewalls any form of negotiation. You are set in your ways, and you are concerned that not enough of your subordinates have followed in your beliefs. Fortunately (from what I have been reading on many of these posts) for the Comair group, you are in the minority. I am in no way implying that your wealth of knowledge and ALPA experience should be ignored. On the contrairy. You are worth your weight in gold when it comes to the actual decision making process. Your expertise in the nuts and bolts of a contract or agreement is not in question.

Maybe it is time to start working with the management team as a unified group to get your company moving in the right direction instead of attacking. Give them a chance. You both need each other to survive. Maybe going at this with an open mind will go along way.

 

[doh]

Tim, Working together is a two way street. Fred's rfp debacle does not start him out as a symbol of trust. He has to get our trust back. We do not make the first move. He's the leader, isn't he?

 

[jetflyer]

Nice post Tim,

I agree. Surplus you've been an uninformed hypocrite for the last week or so as it comes to this proposal. Sorry to be so blunt.

Uninformed: You haven't been reading all of the information. 1)haven't read the "Chat with Fred session on EPIC" 2)haven't spoke with union members 3) haven't read the most recent FAQ about the proposal. 4) Had your info wrong on when the freeze ends 5) Were mistaken and didn't know that the F.O.s would go to 2nd year pay and then be frozen which was in the "Chat with Freddie" on EPIC.

Hypocrite: You keep saying over and over like a broken record, "Wait till all the details come out before judging, Wait till all the details come out before judging!!"
The only one I've seen judging is YOU.
You consistently have tried to spin this thing negative from the beginning.
Go back to when this thread began. You at first were so worried about the FIRST YEAR F.O. that would be stuck at First year pay. AHHH, you said VOTE NO we can't HURT THE FIRST YEAR GUYS!! First, you were wrong. Second do you think we're all dumb enough to think you were concerned about the first year F.O. and not YOUR OWN SENIOR, FAT LEATHER WALLET?

Sorry to be so blunt, you just come accross as very self serving, untrusting, and negative. Give the proposal a shot. Don't distrust Freddie till he deserves to be distrusted. Finally please stop being so negative until you've heard all the DETAILS or atleast GET THE DETAILS YOU ATTACK CORRECT.

Jet

 

[IFlyLow]

Nice post Tim,

I agree. Surplus you've been an uninformed hypocrite for the last week or so as it comes to this proposal. Sorry to be so blunt.

Uninformed: You haven't been reading all of the information. 1)haven't read the "Chat with Fred session on EPIC" 2)Spoke with union members 3) Read the most recent FAQ about the proposal. 4) Had your info wrong on when the freeze ends 5) Were mistaken and didn't know that the F.O.s would go to 2nd year pay then be frozen which was in the Chat with Freddie

Hypocrite: You keep saying over and over like a broken record, "Wait till all the details come out before judging, Wait till all the details come out before judging!!"
The only one I've seen judging is YOU.
You consistently have tried to spin this thing negative from the beginning.
Go back to when this thread began. You at first were so worried about the FIRST YEAR F.O. that would be stuck at First year pay. AHHH, you said VOTE NO we can't HURT THE FIRST YEAR GUYS!! First, you were wrong. Second do you think we're all dumb enough to think you were concerned about the first year F.O. and not YOUR OWN SENIOR, FAT LEATHER WALLET?

Sorry to be so blunt, you just come accross as very self serving, untrusting, and negative. Give the proposal a shot. Don't distrust Freddie till he deserves to be distrusted. Finally please stop being so negative until you've heard all the DETAILS or atleast GET THE DETAILS YOU ATTACK CORRECT.

Jet

I agree with you, jetflyer and Tim.

 

[FlyComAirJets]

Perhaps we wouldn't be so mistrustful of Phred and his boys if they had not been nickel and diming our contract these past 3 1/2 years. The MEC can be accused of a lot of things but they have been reporting that with regularity -- or hadn't you noticed?

Kermit has been given the boot. There is hope.

 

[bvt1151]

I'm just as frustrated with the union's complete lack of communication. Sure, they have made a show of being more open, but its just the same 'ol stuff.

So what happens when our new president comes to talk to the pilots? The union says don't go.

God forbid we get our information from sources outside the union. No matter who is filtering the information, whether it be the union or management, you should always be leary when they attempt to be your only source of information.

Educate yourself.

Listening to the VARS isn't enough.

 

[Caveman]

"Listening to the VARS isn't enough."

Particularly when in the midst of this very interesting period in Comair's history there hasn't been a VARS update in 8 days. Throw me a bone MEC. Any news at all would be welcome. Are you done talking with FB? Are you continuing to negotiate? What's next? Where are we in the process?

There's can be an awful lot of disunity, misinformation, rumour mongering, distrust, anger, resentment, bickering, and concern generated in just a week if there is no info forthcoming from our leadership. I'm not asking for an hourly update, but some sort of VARS message every couple of days isn't an unreasonable expectation.