Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
CMR on the move
- Thread starter Al Coholic
- Start date
- Watchers 46
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
N2264J
Re: member
- Joined
- May 25, 2003
- Posts
- 2,925
N2264J said:
N, having membership ratification does not mean the membership gets to vote on all agreements, only those which the MEC, in its judgment, feel meet the threshold.
It is hard to imagine how preferential hiring by CMR of furloughed DAL pilots would require any change to the CMR PWA. But even if it did, altering the CMR PWA could not be unilateraly done by DAL pilots, it could only be done by the CMR pilots. Your previous assertions to the contrary were just dead wrong.
As for the 50% displacement, I believe the agreement at PSA referred to new aircraft coming on line that PSA pilots otherwise would not have had the opportunity to fly without the US pilots having been forced to surrender that part of their PWA. I hardly believe that the addition of newer and larger aircraft caused a displacement. On the contrary, it represented opportunities that otherwise would not have existed. That is why the elected leadership of the PSA pilots overwhelminly approved the TA.
Last edited:
Looking4Traffic
RFP Aircraft Delivery
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2003
- Posts
- 129
More important questions to ponder -
If a regional pilot falls down at a bar 13 hours before departure, and there's no flight attendant to pour him another drink, does he still have to take a pay cut? Does it make any difference if the bartender is a furloughed pilot with a major carrier?
If a regional pilot falls down at a bar 13 hours before departure, and there's no flight attendant to pour him another drink, does he still have to take a pay cut? Does it make any difference if the bartender is a furloughed pilot with a major carrier?
N2264J
Re: member
- Joined
- May 25, 2003
- Posts
- 2,925
FDJ2 said:
If membership ratification is passed, the MEC is obligated to bring any agreement that significantly effects pay, working conditions and job security to the pilots for a vote according to the admin manual. I think a displacement of 50% of the seniority list qualifies.
Am I making you uncomfortable? You seem to be dismissive of the concept of membership ratification at Comair as if it wouldn't make any difference one way or another. Why would you care?
If you change "US pilots" to "PSA pilots" in the second statement, you understand the point Fins and I are trying to make.
If you want to register your voice in this kind of decision beyond just telling a few guys locked in a room with ALPA attorneys how they should vote - it seems to me, membership ratification is the vehicle of choice. It's about checks and balances.
Last edited:
N2264J
Re: member
- Joined
- May 25, 2003
- Posts
- 2,925
~~~^~~~ said:
There was a Twilight Zone episode where the aliens come to earth clutching a manual called: To Serve Man. Remember that one?
So the aliens set about to fix everything that's wrong with the earth and pretty soon their growing corn on barren land and turning deserts into wheat fields. This inspires great confidence and trust in the aliens.
Food is so plentiful and cheap, everyone seems to be prospering and happy. Then, in one of those classic Rod Serling twists, it is discovered that To Serve Man is actually a cookbook and the aliens have been secretly eating humans...
I can't remember where I was going with this.
Last edited:
~~~^~~~
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Posts
- 6,137
~~~^~~~
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Posts
- 6,137
If it was not for the crap their MEC pulled at the 2000 BOD, the Delta pilots would not be furloughed. Look at all the talk, relevant to this thread, about Comair getting E170's. Now consider the 737-200 as well as the MD88's.doh said:Don't know what that has to do with this thread but I sure hope the Delta guys get back in the saddle soon! I have too many friends just scraping by. Did that help at all?
If the Delta furloughees want to fly Delta passengers any time soon, they need to effect change in their MEC and get rid of the ALPA apartied portfolio of carriers - or alternatively - hire in at ASA for $19K a year.
doh
Jump seat shrink
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2003
- Posts
- 4,017
Part 1 of 3
Ladies and Gentlemen of Comair,
This message has to be long for there are many complex issues to discuss with you. I ask you to be patient and take the time to read it completely.
For heaven’s sake and our own let’s slow down and behave like who we are. Some of these posts make me feel like I work for some outfit in Phoenix or Salt Lake City. At the risk of offending those of you writing in this thread, you’re responding to this proposal/attack (and yes, it’s an attack from Buttrell) like a bunch of amateurs. The sky is not falling!
We have a new president. He’s been here two weeks. He has no track record as an “expert” on how to run an airline. Don’t take my word for that, study his resume; it was published in the Enquirer. He’s aggressive, which should NOT be coming as a “revelation” from heaven. After all, he’s a fighter pilot; what did you expect? He has all the answers in two weeks; nothing short of genius. Clever, yes, but there is more to the “Art of Negotiations” than this proposal. Yes, the proposal is an assault on our contract but nevertheless, we do have options and they ought to be considered.
As Furloughed Again points out, your responses on this board indicate that we are in danger of dividing ourselves. Ironically, he himself although a relatively new Comair pilot (before he quit), has done much to foster that division and far too many of us have bought into it.
Up to now I’ve been quiet about his many posts on the subject of Comair, the majority of which have promoted the idea that we are all about captains vs. first officers. That has not been true in the past and it will not be true now unless you buy into that rhetoric. Do that and we lose this game.
I really don’t want to attack him for he is not the enemy (the enemy is us) but please, do not overlook that this man came from another airline that has a long-standing history of a pilot group divided against itself, where people have been screwing each other for years. It is obvious to me that he brought some of that baggage with him and many of you, particularly the newer members of our group, some with your own baggage from the other airlines you came from, bought into to it. He even launched a serious campaign to rest control of the MEC with junior vs. senior as his standard, promoted himself as “the candidate of the future”, and then dumped you, his followers, like a sack of rocks the instant he got what he considered to be a “better offer” from someplace else. Now that he’s gone, of his own free will, he’s giving us “advice” on how to deal with our problems and avoid the divisions that he helped to create, while at the same time reminding us that it is captain vs. first officer. Face reality please. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, talks like a duck, it’s a duck.
It may very well be prudent to make changes in the administration of our MEC, just as changes have been made in the leadership of our management. However, those changes should not be made on the basis of “senior vs. junior”. They need to be made on the basis of what is best for ALL of us.
Could this issue become divisive? Yes, it could. But, it will not if we keep our heads about us and do not allow the pot of division to be fueled by folks that have no investment and no stake in the future of Comair. Our unity is the most valuable asset that we own. No matter what proposal management may make now or in the future, if we give up that unity and start squabbling among ourselves in the modus operandi of the US Airways pilots, we will surely lose the game. Now is the time that we NEED to stick together as much as any other time in our history and deal intelligently with our situation, independent of outside influence no matter the source. Remember this: the only people that care about Comair pilots are Comair pilots. It is imperative that we remain united and take care of each other.
Furloughed Again is correct when he says that this proposal could be an effort to “break the union”. Indeed it could. I do not know if that is Mr. Buttrell’s intent but I do know that he is powerless to break this union unless we let him do it. If that IS his purpose, quarrelling with each other will surely make it happen. It is also the worst possible decision that we could make.
I do ask you to think carefully about this. IF it is not Mr. Buttrell’s intention to seek to destroy our unity, why did he make his proposal for a change in our contract in public and directly to the pilots? Why did he NOT make his proposal to our representatives privately and give them a chance to respond? What is the purpose of the “portfolio concept”; to divide and conquer. I don’t want to be paranoid but again, if it looks like a duck ….. you get the picture. The content of the proposal is important but the method by which it was delivered is even more so. It is highly irregular for management to proceed in this manner even late in the negotiating process. To do so before negotiations have begun is downright dirty pool.
If you doubt what I’m saying just look at the recent negotiations at Delta itself. They were extremely difficult and there was far more at stake. Yet, at no time did the Company do this to the Delta MEC. What this man (Buttrell) is telling you is that he has no regard whatever for the Comair pilots’ union and, beyond that, little regard for Comair pilots. Telling us that we’re “part of the team” rings hollow; a marketing spin. If he had any respect for what we think he would not have done this. I’d bet you a dollar to a donut he would not have done this at Delta. First a public call for a meeting with 40 pilots (more or less) before he meets with our MEC. Then a public proposal, directly to the pilots, before the MEC could possibly respond to the proposal. Ladies and gentlemen it’s a gauntlet. He regards us as fools and will use every opportunity to take advantage of us. I pray you will have the common sense and courage to prove him wrong. I’m not talking about the content of the proposal I’m talking about the method used to convey it. Regardless of all of that, the “proposal” must be considered on its merits only , not on our emotions or ego.
Note: I’ll confess that his decision to get rid of Kermit goes a long way to convincing me that he’s worth listening to. That one earns many points and we can only hope that the Pied Piper will follow in short order. Many points for FB on that score.
Yes, I know that many of us, including me, are not satisfied with the recent performance of our MEC. Nevertheless, unless WE decide to change it, those people are our elected representatives. Deliberately bypassing them in this manner is a slap in the face of every one of us and should be regarded as such. WE may have “problems” with the current MEC but Mr. Buttrell does not. This is not a slap at JC or CT, it’s a bomb thrown at every Comair pilot, and very similar to a terrorist attack, intended to cause confusion, intimidation and discord within our ranks. I urge you to treat it accordingly, whether we elect a new Chairman or decide to keep the one we have. It is time to circle the wagons. Please do not misunderstand. I am not advocating a war with our new management. I am advocating an intelligent defense of our contract. We may need to change it but, we do not need to jump at the first proposal that comes along.
Now to the “proposal” itself: First of all this really isn’t a negotiating proposal. It’s more like a missile raid launched without warning in the middle of the night. Nevertheless, Buttrell has temporarily gained the initiative. We must address his proposal but there is absolutely no need to fall all over ourselves. It is a proposal, not a mandate. Proposals can be modified and this one should be. The “package” outlines 3 key areas. Two of them are mostly beyond the control of pilots and not relevant to the discussion so I will skip those and go to the quick.
Please continue to Part 2
Ladies and Gentlemen of Comair,
This message has to be long for there are many complex issues to discuss with you. I ask you to be patient and take the time to read it completely.
For heaven’s sake and our own let’s slow down and behave like who we are. Some of these posts make me feel like I work for some outfit in Phoenix or Salt Lake City. At the risk of offending those of you writing in this thread, you’re responding to this proposal/attack (and yes, it’s an attack from Buttrell) like a bunch of amateurs. The sky is not falling!
We have a new president. He’s been here two weeks. He has no track record as an “expert” on how to run an airline. Don’t take my word for that, study his resume; it was published in the Enquirer. He’s aggressive, which should NOT be coming as a “revelation” from heaven. After all, he’s a fighter pilot; what did you expect? He has all the answers in two weeks; nothing short of genius. Clever, yes, but there is more to the “Art of Negotiations” than this proposal. Yes, the proposal is an assault on our contract but nevertheless, we do have options and they ought to be considered.
As Furloughed Again points out, your responses on this board indicate that we are in danger of dividing ourselves. Ironically, he himself although a relatively new Comair pilot (before he quit), has done much to foster that division and far too many of us have bought into it.
Up to now I’ve been quiet about his many posts on the subject of Comair, the majority of which have promoted the idea that we are all about captains vs. first officers. That has not been true in the past and it will not be true now unless you buy into that rhetoric. Do that and we lose this game.
I really don’t want to attack him for he is not the enemy (the enemy is us) but please, do not overlook that this man came from another airline that has a long-standing history of a pilot group divided against itself, where people have been screwing each other for years. It is obvious to me that he brought some of that baggage with him and many of you, particularly the newer members of our group, some with your own baggage from the other airlines you came from, bought into to it. He even launched a serious campaign to rest control of the MEC with junior vs. senior as his standard, promoted himself as “the candidate of the future”, and then dumped you, his followers, like a sack of rocks the instant he got what he considered to be a “better offer” from someplace else. Now that he’s gone, of his own free will, he’s giving us “advice” on how to deal with our problems and avoid the divisions that he helped to create, while at the same time reminding us that it is captain vs. first officer. Face reality please. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, talks like a duck, it’s a duck.
It may very well be prudent to make changes in the administration of our MEC, just as changes have been made in the leadership of our management. However, those changes should not be made on the basis of “senior vs. junior”. They need to be made on the basis of what is best for ALL of us.
Could this issue become divisive? Yes, it could. But, it will not if we keep our heads about us and do not allow the pot of division to be fueled by folks that have no investment and no stake in the future of Comair. Our unity is the most valuable asset that we own. No matter what proposal management may make now or in the future, if we give up that unity and start squabbling among ourselves in the modus operandi of the US Airways pilots, we will surely lose the game. Now is the time that we NEED to stick together as much as any other time in our history and deal intelligently with our situation, independent of outside influence no matter the source. Remember this: the only people that care about Comair pilots are Comair pilots. It is imperative that we remain united and take care of each other.
Furloughed Again is correct when he says that this proposal could be an effort to “break the union”. Indeed it could. I do not know if that is Mr. Buttrell’s intent but I do know that he is powerless to break this union unless we let him do it. If that IS his purpose, quarrelling with each other will surely make it happen. It is also the worst possible decision that we could make.
I do ask you to think carefully about this. IF it is not Mr. Buttrell’s intention to seek to destroy our unity, why did he make his proposal for a change in our contract in public and directly to the pilots? Why did he NOT make his proposal to our representatives privately and give them a chance to respond? What is the purpose of the “portfolio concept”; to divide and conquer. I don’t want to be paranoid but again, if it looks like a duck ….. you get the picture. The content of the proposal is important but the method by which it was delivered is even more so. It is highly irregular for management to proceed in this manner even late in the negotiating process. To do so before negotiations have begun is downright dirty pool.
If you doubt what I’m saying just look at the recent negotiations at Delta itself. They were extremely difficult and there was far more at stake. Yet, at no time did the Company do this to the Delta MEC. What this man (Buttrell) is telling you is that he has no regard whatever for the Comair pilots’ union and, beyond that, little regard for Comair pilots. Telling us that we’re “part of the team” rings hollow; a marketing spin. If he had any respect for what we think he would not have done this. I’d bet you a dollar to a donut he would not have done this at Delta. First a public call for a meeting with 40 pilots (more or less) before he meets with our MEC. Then a public proposal, directly to the pilots, before the MEC could possibly respond to the proposal. Ladies and gentlemen it’s a gauntlet. He regards us as fools and will use every opportunity to take advantage of us. I pray you will have the common sense and courage to prove him wrong. I’m not talking about the content of the proposal I’m talking about the method used to convey it. Regardless of all of that, the “proposal” must be considered on its merits only , not on our emotions or ego.
Note: I’ll confess that his decision to get rid of Kermit goes a long way to convincing me that he’s worth listening to. That one earns many points and we can only hope that the Pied Piper will follow in short order. Many points for FB on that score.
Yes, I know that many of us, including me, are not satisfied with the recent performance of our MEC. Nevertheless, unless WE decide to change it, those people are our elected representatives. Deliberately bypassing them in this manner is a slap in the face of every one of us and should be regarded as such. WE may have “problems” with the current MEC but Mr. Buttrell does not. This is not a slap at JC or CT, it’s a bomb thrown at every Comair pilot, and very similar to a terrorist attack, intended to cause confusion, intimidation and discord within our ranks. I urge you to treat it accordingly, whether we elect a new Chairman or decide to keep the one we have. It is time to circle the wagons. Please do not misunderstand. I am not advocating a war with our new management. I am advocating an intelligent defense of our contract. We may need to change it but, we do not need to jump at the first proposal that comes along.
Now to the “proposal” itself: First of all this really isn’t a negotiating proposal. It’s more like a missile raid launched without warning in the middle of the night. Nevertheless, Buttrell has temporarily gained the initiative. We must address his proposal but there is absolutely no need to fall all over ourselves. It is a proposal, not a mandate. Proposals can be modified and this one should be. The “package” outlines 3 key areas. Two of them are mostly beyond the control of pilots and not relevant to the discussion so I will skip those and go to the quick.
Please continue to Part 2
Part 2 of 3
The Concessions Proposal (for growth).
Don’t kid yourselves for a minute, that’s what it is (a concessions proposal), so let’s start by calling a spade a spade. There is no reason for alarm; we knew it was coming and now we’ve seen a part of it. It should not be rejected out of hand merely because the method of delivery sucks and is really a cheap shot. We will have to negotiate but if we remain united we definitely have the power to change this “proposal” in a way that can satisfy us all.
Some points to consider:
1) There is NO DEADLINE of “the third week of February”! That’s just thrown in to encourage a hasty and haphazard decision. It’s artificial and should be regarded as such. Granted we don’t have a year to debate, but the sky is NOT going to fall in 21 days. There is no need for us to rush into this without due diligence. Negotiations of the type that a change of this magnitude would require cannot practically be conducted in three weeks. Not if our reps as doing their jobs.
2) Acceptance of this “proposal” would require amendment of our current contract and would be of the nature that represents a major change in the CBA. [Note: For more than 10 years our MEC has committed and guaranteed to all of us that no major change in the CBA, that is not an improvement, will be made without a ratification vote by the pilots at large. I believe there is no reason to be concerned about that; we will have an opportunity to vote when the time comes.]
3) We are told, and I quote, “I am not asking pilots (and flight attendants) for a pay cut.” That is a false statement. Simply put, it is not possible to agree to a “freeze” in pay that is contractually guaranteed without experiencing a loss of pay, and that = pay cut. You can call it anything you want. It may be a different style of pay cut but it is still a pay cut.[/b]
4) Mr. Buttrell states: “In exchange, we will commit to at least 10 additional CRJ 200s and 25 additional 70-seat aircraft.” That may sound nice but consider this:
· Who is “we”? There is currently no one at Comair, including its new President, that has the power to commit Delta Air Lines to do anything. Delta buys the aircraft and Delta owns the aircraft.
· Therefore, unless Delta is willing to put its official signature on any agreement of this type, Mr. Buttrell is making a promise and nothing more. A promise that he and Comair do not have the legal power to make good. There is a vast difference between a binding commitment and the promise of a person without the authority to commit.
· Nothing in the “proposal” indicates whether the promised 70-seat aircraft would represent an increment in the fleet size (although that is implied) or merely be a replacement for current 50-seat aircraft. As used in the memo, the term “additional” doesn’t necessarily mean a bigger fleet. There is also nothing (in the proposal) that guarantees that once delivered, these airframes will stay at CMR and cannot later be moved to some other airline. This must be clarified, in a binding contract.
5) The proposed duration of the “freeze” is one year, to begin with delivery of the first “growth” aircraft. However, the proposal also states that the new amendable date of the PWA would be May of 2007.
· Does that mean the first growth aircraft will not be delivered prior to May of 2006? If the 1st growth aircraft is delivered in May of 2005, then the freeze would equal 2 years. If it is delivered on 1 December of 2005, the freeze would have a duration of one year and six months. Perhaps Mr. Buttrell is aware of the planned delivery schedule but we are not. In the absence of a planned delivery schedule, which is made known to the MEC, it is not possible for them to determine the true financial impact of the freeze or how long it will really last. They would in fact be negotiating in a vacuum. This must be substantially clarified.
· In the proposal, both longevity and COLA increments would be “frozen”. Given the history of collective bargaining at Comair, approximately 3 years of negotiations are required to reach a new agreement. If this trend continues (probable), the effective duration of the “freeze” could be as much as 4 years, not one year. The snap back needs to be modified and clarified so that the concessions terminate 1) if the 1st aircraft is not delivered by a date certain, and, 2) no more than a fixed length of time (whatever it is) from the day it begins, period. In other words, this must be negotiated not rammed down our throats.
· Our most senior pilots (with 18 years or more of service) would be affected relatively minimally, experiencing (come 6/22) a loss of + - $4 to $6 per hr. for the duration of the freeze + negotiations. They are already at the top of the pay scale. They will also not benefit from the growth.
· Our mid range captains (9 yrs. Svc.) would experience and initial loss of + - $4 per hr. initially. Those able to transition to the additional CR7’s would actually get a raise. So would those FO’s that upgrade (less than 10% of the group) that otherwise would not. How long it would take varies with the delivery schedule, likely to be 2 yrs for the CR7 and 1 year for the CR2. Should the CR7s replace existing CR2’s, everything changes.
· Our most junior, currently employed, pilots (less than one year’s service) would experience a pay cut the equivalent of approx. $14 to $18 per credit hour on the 1st day they complete probation, if implemented today. Dependent on how the details are handled, the wait for increment (2nd yr) pay could be longer than a year for some and a disaster for those very close to their probation end when the 1st delivery takes place. We could in fact create a “B” scale inadvertently. That is unacceptably disproportionate and so is the B scale concept, IMO.
· Do not overlook the proposed 30 month seat lock. That is an increase of 18 months. This could allow junior pilots to fly the higher paying aircraft out of seniority, and will affect several other sections of the contract that are not mentioned, e.g., Training, Filling of Vacancies, Retirement, 401K, etc. Every pilot that is not already a CR7 Captain and every pilot that has not already completed 30 months in his/her seat could be adversely affected. Of course it will save the company considerable training costs but our contract already discourages sport bidding. Is this really necessary? It doesn’t seem so to me. Was this thrown in as a “give away” or is there a hidden agenda that doesn’t appear in the Buttrell memo? I’m all for keeping things “simple” as he said so why this complication? Much negotiating is required to resolve this.
6) References to the EMB170 should be seen for what they are; a ploy that plays to the “size syndrome” of a few. While I would agree that the aircraft has greater passenger appeal and would like to get it, I do not think it warrants a pay differential with the CR7. It is therefore “wishful thinking” that should not affect pilot compensation. Six of one, half dozen of the other. Therefore this is irrelevant to the substance of the proposal. Conclusion: that “spin” was included as an intentional distraction.
7) Performance Pay Program - Interesting touch. Is this another word for profit- sharing? Can it be measured in real dollars? With consolidated accounting with Delta, just how is this going to be measured; what are the criteria? Does Mr. Buttrell really believe that it is necessary to “bribe” Comair pilots to obtain their best performance? “Merit pay” schemes have little to do with “performance” and everything to do with politics.
Please go to Part 3
The Concessions Proposal (for growth).
Don’t kid yourselves for a minute, that’s what it is (a concessions proposal), so let’s start by calling a spade a spade. There is no reason for alarm; we knew it was coming and now we’ve seen a part of it. It should not be rejected out of hand merely because the method of delivery sucks and is really a cheap shot. We will have to negotiate but if we remain united we definitely have the power to change this “proposal” in a way that can satisfy us all.
Some points to consider:
1) There is NO DEADLINE of “the third week of February”! That’s just thrown in to encourage a hasty and haphazard decision. It’s artificial and should be regarded as such. Granted we don’t have a year to debate, but the sky is NOT going to fall in 21 days. There is no need for us to rush into this without due diligence. Negotiations of the type that a change of this magnitude would require cannot practically be conducted in three weeks. Not if our reps as doing their jobs.
2) Acceptance of this “proposal” would require amendment of our current contract and would be of the nature that represents a major change in the CBA. [Note: For more than 10 years our MEC has committed and guaranteed to all of us that no major change in the CBA, that is not an improvement, will be made without a ratification vote by the pilots at large. I believe there is no reason to be concerned about that; we will have an opportunity to vote when the time comes.]
3) We are told, and I quote, “I am not asking pilots (and flight attendants) for a pay cut.” That is a false statement. Simply put, it is not possible to agree to a “freeze” in pay that is contractually guaranteed without experiencing a loss of pay, and that = pay cut. You can call it anything you want. It may be a different style of pay cut but it is still a pay cut.[/b]
4) Mr. Buttrell states: “In exchange, we will commit to at least 10 additional CRJ 200s and 25 additional 70-seat aircraft.” That may sound nice but consider this:
· Who is “we”? There is currently no one at Comair, including its new President, that has the power to commit Delta Air Lines to do anything. Delta buys the aircraft and Delta owns the aircraft.
· Therefore, unless Delta is willing to put its official signature on any agreement of this type, Mr. Buttrell is making a promise and nothing more. A promise that he and Comair do not have the legal power to make good. There is a vast difference between a binding commitment and the promise of a person without the authority to commit.
· Nothing in the “proposal” indicates whether the promised 70-seat aircraft would represent an increment in the fleet size (although that is implied) or merely be a replacement for current 50-seat aircraft. As used in the memo, the term “additional” doesn’t necessarily mean a bigger fleet. There is also nothing (in the proposal) that guarantees that once delivered, these airframes will stay at CMR and cannot later be moved to some other airline. This must be clarified, in a binding contract.
5) The proposed duration of the “freeze” is one year, to begin with delivery of the first “growth” aircraft. However, the proposal also states that the new amendable date of the PWA would be May of 2007.
· Does that mean the first growth aircraft will not be delivered prior to May of 2006? If the 1st growth aircraft is delivered in May of 2005, then the freeze would equal 2 years. If it is delivered on 1 December of 2005, the freeze would have a duration of one year and six months. Perhaps Mr. Buttrell is aware of the planned delivery schedule but we are not. In the absence of a planned delivery schedule, which is made known to the MEC, it is not possible for them to determine the true financial impact of the freeze or how long it will really last. They would in fact be negotiating in a vacuum. This must be substantially clarified.
· In the proposal, both longevity and COLA increments would be “frozen”. Given the history of collective bargaining at Comair, approximately 3 years of negotiations are required to reach a new agreement. If this trend continues (probable), the effective duration of the “freeze” could be as much as 4 years, not one year. The snap back needs to be modified and clarified so that the concessions terminate 1) if the 1st aircraft is not delivered by a date certain, and, 2) no more than a fixed length of time (whatever it is) from the day it begins, period. In other words, this must be negotiated not rammed down our throats.
· Our most senior pilots (with 18 years or more of service) would be affected relatively minimally, experiencing (come 6/22) a loss of + - $4 to $6 per hr. for the duration of the freeze + negotiations. They are already at the top of the pay scale. They will also not benefit from the growth.
· Our mid range captains (9 yrs. Svc.) would experience and initial loss of + - $4 per hr. initially. Those able to transition to the additional CR7’s would actually get a raise. So would those FO’s that upgrade (less than 10% of the group) that otherwise would not. How long it would take varies with the delivery schedule, likely to be 2 yrs for the CR7 and 1 year for the CR2. Should the CR7s replace existing CR2’s, everything changes.
· Our most junior, currently employed, pilots (less than one year’s service) would experience a pay cut the equivalent of approx. $14 to $18 per credit hour on the 1st day they complete probation, if implemented today. Dependent on how the details are handled, the wait for increment (2nd yr) pay could be longer than a year for some and a disaster for those very close to their probation end when the 1st delivery takes place. We could in fact create a “B” scale inadvertently. That is unacceptably disproportionate and so is the B scale concept, IMO.
· Do not overlook the proposed 30 month seat lock. That is an increase of 18 months. This could allow junior pilots to fly the higher paying aircraft out of seniority, and will affect several other sections of the contract that are not mentioned, e.g., Training, Filling of Vacancies, Retirement, 401K, etc. Every pilot that is not already a CR7 Captain and every pilot that has not already completed 30 months in his/her seat could be adversely affected. Of course it will save the company considerable training costs but our contract already discourages sport bidding. Is this really necessary? It doesn’t seem so to me. Was this thrown in as a “give away” or is there a hidden agenda that doesn’t appear in the Buttrell memo? I’m all for keeping things “simple” as he said so why this complication? Much negotiating is required to resolve this.
6) References to the EMB170 should be seen for what they are; a ploy that plays to the “size syndrome” of a few. While I would agree that the aircraft has greater passenger appeal and would like to get it, I do not think it warrants a pay differential with the CR7. It is therefore “wishful thinking” that should not affect pilot compensation. Six of one, half dozen of the other. Therefore this is irrelevant to the substance of the proposal. Conclusion: that “spin” was included as an intentional distraction.
7) Performance Pay Program - Interesting touch. Is this another word for profit- sharing? Can it be measured in real dollars? With consolidated accounting with Delta, just how is this going to be measured; what are the criteria? Does Mr. Buttrell really believe that it is necessary to “bribe” Comair pilots to obtain their best performance? “Merit pay” schemes have little to do with “performance” and everything to do with politics.
Please go to Part 3
Part 3 of 3
A “straight shooter” talks straight all of the time. This memo from our President is not all straight talk. It’s full of innuendo and guesswork. We may very well need to make a deal in our own interest but we do NOT need to jump off of a cliff or play word games with the President. If he wants a deal then we need to negotiate that deal. Artificial deadlines, promises that can’t be kept by the person making them, and a proposal riddled from top to bottom with ambiguity is not a serious effort at solving problems. We should not just reject the idea for it does have merit but, we certainly don’t need to fall all over ourselves either. Maybe he can’t be “straight” with us, but we can and must be straight with each other, and with him.
What Should We Do?
A. Stop panicking! This is only a “proposal”, there are not enough details (in the memo) and it just can’t be done in 21 days, unless we choose to be downright stupid. So the non-union employees took a pay freeze. That does not mean that we should. They had no choice and that is precisely why we have a union. We have choices and we need to exercise them prudently in our own interests. By the way, that union is not in DC, it is right here in CVG and it’s us! The people in DC don’t give a hoot what happens to us; it will not affect them. Remember that as we make our own decisions.
B. We must first decide whether or not we want to enter into negotiations with the Company at all. As you all know we are not obliged to do so. That does NOT mean that I think we should say “full pay to the last day”. That would be gross stupidity. We must be realistic. If the Company wants to discuss changes to our collective bargaining agreement then, in my opinion, we should not refuse to talk with them. Perhaps we will reach an understanding, perhaps not, but we should give it a serious try.
C. If we decide to negotiate, that does NOT mean that we need to only consider their first proposal and nothing else. Many of you seem to respond as though there were no other options out there; in fact there are several. Surely we can be more creative than that. What’s wrong with a counter proposal?
If our MEC is not prepared for this and has no plan of its own already prepared, then maybe we do need some new MEC Officers. Our old President did not come up with this idea, the new President did (give credit where credit is due). Well, if our old (current) officers don’t have any ideas of their own in waiting, there is no reason we can’t find a new bunch, just like the Company did. Our leaders are responsible for leading not for following the Company’s lead. When they fail to lead it is time for new leadership . They knew this was coming and they should have more than one counter proposal ready to go. Now that the company has revealed its line of thinking all they should have to do is dust off the right plan and present it. If they do NOT have a plan, then we had better get some new leaders to come up with a couple, and quick.
D. If this proposal can’t be modified into a win/win proposal of our own of joint making, something is wrong. The Company’s proposal is a win/lose scenario and we are the losers. We simply should not abandon our junior people. We have never done that before and this is NOT the time to start. We know what the company wants and we should know what we want. There is no reason we can’t put something together that is of mutual benefit. This is NOT the time for stonewalling! Growth at any price is not a viable option. Growth at the right price should definitely be considered. There are lots of good brains within the Comair pilot group. Let’s put them together and come up with a solution that gives us as much as we give the Company. This airline is not in bankruptcy and we have no current need to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. However, we do need sensible solutions to the status quo.
E. Finally, growth does have a price today and we may have to pay it. If we do, then the price should be spread over the entire pilot group as evenly as possible. No single group of Comair pilots should have to bear the brunt of the burden. If we break from tradition and do that, the price that we pay will be far greater than a few small concessions. Extension of the Agreement may well be the best option, but how that is done is extremely important to all of us. The ability to do ANYTHING and do it RIGHT will be determined by OUR UNITY. Anything less is a disaster for our future as a group. If you don’t want to wind up like Mesa, then put your thinking caps on.
F. Growth is necessary for any healthy company but it is not enough to promise it, it must be guaranteed in a meaningful way. Most of us would not buy a car from a man that doesn’t have a title to that car. Why in the world would we buy a guarantee of anything as important as our future from someone that can’t deliver? Contrary to the opinion of Mr. Buttrell, growth in itself or by itself does not guarantee job security. There has to be more.
G. Don’t forget that Mr. Buttrell himself is the architect of why we have no growth now. Delta’s practices in route structure and planning are a major factor in the degradation of our previously stellar performance. Delta’s policies are the primary cause of changes in our Customer service that have hurt Comair. Based on Mr. Buttrell’s rhetoric, he has recognized this and will make changes. Our failure to grow is not caused by the compensation of Comair pilots it is caused by the direct decisions of the very man that is making this proposal. Now that he’s been dumped into the barrel that he himself created, he wants us to bail him out so that he can look good at our expense. Maybe we will help and maybe we should, but he needs to find a way to ensure that we don’t sacrifice for naught. Paying a price for job security is not a bad idea. Paying that price for “growth” without job security is stupid. Comair pilots are not stupid, so let’s get to work and prove it, together.
Thanks for reading.
A “straight shooter” talks straight all of the time. This memo from our President is not all straight talk. It’s full of innuendo and guesswork. We may very well need to make a deal in our own interest but we do NOT need to jump off of a cliff or play word games with the President. If he wants a deal then we need to negotiate that deal. Artificial deadlines, promises that can’t be kept by the person making them, and a proposal riddled from top to bottom with ambiguity is not a serious effort at solving problems. We should not just reject the idea for it does have merit but, we certainly don’t need to fall all over ourselves either. Maybe he can’t be “straight” with us, but we can and must be straight with each other, and with him.
What Should We Do?
A. Stop panicking! This is only a “proposal”, there are not enough details (in the memo) and it just can’t be done in 21 days, unless we choose to be downright stupid. So the non-union employees took a pay freeze. That does not mean that we should. They had no choice and that is precisely why we have a union. We have choices and we need to exercise them prudently in our own interests. By the way, that union is not in DC, it is right here in CVG and it’s us! The people in DC don’t give a hoot what happens to us; it will not affect them. Remember that as we make our own decisions.
B. We must first decide whether or not we want to enter into negotiations with the Company at all. As you all know we are not obliged to do so. That does NOT mean that I think we should say “full pay to the last day”. That would be gross stupidity. We must be realistic. If the Company wants to discuss changes to our collective bargaining agreement then, in my opinion, we should not refuse to talk with them. Perhaps we will reach an understanding, perhaps not, but we should give it a serious try.
C. If we decide to negotiate, that does NOT mean that we need to only consider their first proposal and nothing else. Many of you seem to respond as though there were no other options out there; in fact there are several. Surely we can be more creative than that. What’s wrong with a counter proposal?
If our MEC is not prepared for this and has no plan of its own already prepared, then maybe we do need some new MEC Officers. Our old President did not come up with this idea, the new President did (give credit where credit is due). Well, if our old (current) officers don’t have any ideas of their own in waiting, there is no reason we can’t find a new bunch, just like the Company did. Our leaders are responsible for leading not for following the Company’s lead. When they fail to lead it is time for new leadership . They knew this was coming and they should have more than one counter proposal ready to go. Now that the company has revealed its line of thinking all they should have to do is dust off the right plan and present it. If they do NOT have a plan, then we had better get some new leaders to come up with a couple, and quick.
D. If this proposal can’t be modified into a win/win proposal of our own of joint making, something is wrong. The Company’s proposal is a win/lose scenario and we are the losers. We simply should not abandon our junior people. We have never done that before and this is NOT the time to start. We know what the company wants and we should know what we want. There is no reason we can’t put something together that is of mutual benefit. This is NOT the time for stonewalling! Growth at any price is not a viable option. Growth at the right price should definitely be considered. There are lots of good brains within the Comair pilot group. Let’s put them together and come up with a solution that gives us as much as we give the Company. This airline is not in bankruptcy and we have no current need to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. However, we do need sensible solutions to the status quo.
E. Finally, growth does have a price today and we may have to pay it. If we do, then the price should be spread over the entire pilot group as evenly as possible. No single group of Comair pilots should have to bear the brunt of the burden. If we break from tradition and do that, the price that we pay will be far greater than a few small concessions. Extension of the Agreement may well be the best option, but how that is done is extremely important to all of us. The ability to do ANYTHING and do it RIGHT will be determined by OUR UNITY. Anything less is a disaster for our future as a group. If you don’t want to wind up like Mesa, then put your thinking caps on.
F. Growth is necessary for any healthy company but it is not enough to promise it, it must be guaranteed in a meaningful way. Most of us would not buy a car from a man that doesn’t have a title to that car. Why in the world would we buy a guarantee of anything as important as our future from someone that can’t deliver? Contrary to the opinion of Mr. Buttrell, growth in itself or by itself does not guarantee job security. There has to be more.
G. Don’t forget that Mr. Buttrell himself is the architect of why we have no growth now. Delta’s practices in route structure and planning are a major factor in the degradation of our previously stellar performance. Delta’s policies are the primary cause of changes in our Customer service that have hurt Comair. Based on Mr. Buttrell’s rhetoric, he has recognized this and will make changes. Our failure to grow is not caused by the compensation of Comair pilots it is caused by the direct decisions of the very man that is making this proposal. Now that he’s been dumped into the barrel that he himself created, he wants us to bail him out so that he can look good at our expense. Maybe we will help and maybe we should, but he needs to find a way to ensure that we don’t sacrifice for naught. Paying a price for job security is not a bad idea. Paying that price for “growth” without job security is stupid. Comair pilots are not stupid, so let’s get to work and prove it, together.
Thanks for reading.
Taking us independant?
Surplus,
Nice post. I had to take a few coffee breaks in the middle but you have some valid points. I don't necessarily agree with the overwhelming consensus among the senior pilots at Comair that Freddie is a hatchet man. I think there is a good possibility that Grinstein told him to spruce up Comair so it could be sold and if that's the case, Fred could be the man in charge. What's better...CEO of an independant regional or a middle manager at Delta? Most people who like a challenge (and I think Fred does) would take the CEO job. Assuming I'm right, Fred's interest actually are alligned with ours in that he want's Comair to be a growing, profitable company in the future.
If we have to take a freeze/concessions to get there, then so be it but I don't see how it's a race to the bottom as long as our contract is still higher than our DCI counterparts. As a matter of fact, until we get all of the carriers close to one another, we will always get the short end of the stick. That's no big deal for all you senior captains out there but it blows for FOs looking at a ten year upgrade. Don't start preaching about holding up the professioin...we simply want the same job advancement and oppurtunities to accept new challenges that you had.
Can we not compete without being subsidized by Delta? I think we can if we are flexible and I think we'd be better off in the long run by being spun off by Delta. I think that's where Fred has been told to take us and until he has been caught lying red-handed, I will give him the benefit of the doubt.
As for why he would go around the MEC...his job is to communicate his plan and goals. Maybe he doesn't trust the MEC to communicate everything to us and after the RFP debacle last year, I don't either. He's just doing his job and we shouldn't be surprised.
I'll wait for the details of this proposal to come out but from what I've heard so far, I'm leaning "yes". I can't shut my mouth in the name of unity if I disagree with the hardliners. I get the impression from them that you are free to be heard as long as you don't disagree and I for one resent that.
Surplus,
Nice post. I had to take a few coffee breaks in the middle but you have some valid points. I don't necessarily agree with the overwhelming consensus among the senior pilots at Comair that Freddie is a hatchet man. I think there is a good possibility that Grinstein told him to spruce up Comair so it could be sold and if that's the case, Fred could be the man in charge. What's better...CEO of an independant regional or a middle manager at Delta? Most people who like a challenge (and I think Fred does) would take the CEO job. Assuming I'm right, Fred's interest actually are alligned with ours in that he want's Comair to be a growing, profitable company in the future.
If we have to take a freeze/concessions to get there, then so be it but I don't see how it's a race to the bottom as long as our contract is still higher than our DCI counterparts. As a matter of fact, until we get all of the carriers close to one another, we will always get the short end of the stick. That's no big deal for all you senior captains out there but it blows for FOs looking at a ten year upgrade. Don't start preaching about holding up the professioin...we simply want the same job advancement and oppurtunities to accept new challenges that you had.
Can we not compete without being subsidized by Delta? I think we can if we are flexible and I think we'd be better off in the long run by being spun off by Delta. I think that's where Fred has been told to take us and until he has been caught lying red-handed, I will give him the benefit of the doubt.
As for why he would go around the MEC...his job is to communicate his plan and goals. Maybe he doesn't trust the MEC to communicate everything to us and after the RFP debacle last year, I don't either. He's just doing his job and we shouldn't be surprised.
I'll wait for the details of this proposal to come out but from what I've heard so far, I'm leaning "yes". I can't shut my mouth in the name of unity if I disagree with the hardliners. I get the impression from them that you are free to be heard as long as you don't disagree and I for one resent that.
doh
Jump seat shrink
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2003
- Posts
- 4,017
Surplus,
Awesome post, I could not agree more!
Outlaw,
The RFP debacle was so because it was NOT!!! a bid. If it had been then we would be growing. Lowest overall cost should equal lowest bid. It did'nt because they had already decided where the aircraft were going, period. There's the bald face lie that Phred has been caught in. Still ready to give him the benefit of the doubt? We should still be willing to negotiate something good for every one, but tread lightly!
Awesome post, I could not agree more!
Outlaw,
The RFP debacle was so because it was NOT!!! a bid. If it had been then we would be growing. Lowest overall cost should equal lowest bid. It did'nt because they had already decided where the aircraft were going, period. There's the bald face lie that Phred has been caught in. Still ready to give him the benefit of the doubt? We should still be willing to negotiate something good for every one, but tread lightly!
~~~^~~~ said:
You know, you're right, I mistakenly attributed "N's" incorrect delcaration for yours. By your above comments, I take it that you agree that the PSA J4J protocol that required an alteration to the PSA PWA was in fact not unilaterally done by mainline pilots, but rather agreed to by the overwhelming majority of the PSA MEC. I take it that you must also agree that the PSA MEC was aware of the 50-50 ratio called for in the J4J protocol when they ratified J4J inaccordance with the ALPA Constitution and By-Laws.
However, your statement that the opportunity to fly larger jet aircraft, as a result of the unfortunate concessions extracted from the US pilots somehow split the PSA MEC lacks credibility. The PSA MEC overwhelmingly supported this agreement by a vote of 8-1. Having only one dissenting vote can hardly be characterized as splitting an MEC. You can, of course, characterize this agreement any way you want, but then again no one ever voted for you or authorized you to speak for the PSA pilots. Given that, I think I'll go with the characterization given by someone who was, Capt Barnett, as opposed to the rhetoric of others.
"We are extremely pleased to reach a settlement with our management for this aircraft" said Capt. William Barnett, secretary-treasurer of the PSA pilots’ unit of ALPA. "We want to see PSA prosper and grow. The operation of these larger jets will help us to provide better service and coverage for our portion of the US Airways network."
Last edited:
Share this page
Latest posts
-
Question Any Other NXCub Drivers Out There?- Latest: lrobichaux
-
-
-
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
