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
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:
jetflyer
Concerned Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2002
- Posts
- 2,040
Surplus,
The first year F.O.s would not get stuck at the 1st year pay rate. When they get off PROBATION, they will go to the second year pay which is I believe around $37.00 an hour.
I think you believed they would be stuck at first year pay. Going to second year pay isn't a bad deal for the junior F.O.s. If anything they have the most to benefit. They will get 2nd year pay and be off reserve very, very quickly with the hiring of approximately 400 pilots.
The bottom 200 F.O.s CURRENTLY on the Comair list will all be off reserve, for which currently there is no end, and the Junior Lineholders and commuters will benefit GREATLY by much much better lines(with 400 additional pilots below them they'll be half way up the F.O. list and atleast hope hope for their and their families future).
I respectfully think you're concern for the JUNIOR pilots is simply misguided. I think they have more to gain than anyone on the list.
Why do you think the attrition has been coming from JUNIOR F.O.s at Comair the last year??? They had lost hope for the future. They were giving up and going to CHQ!! NO LIE. I know many many F.O.s that wish they were at CHQ and not Comair. I'm not one of them.
I talked first in a group and then one on one with Fred Butrell today in one of the wings of Concourse C.
I was impressed. He is a true leader, no lie. I DO NOT believe he's some half crazed lunatic trying to rape our contract. He came across as a leader that wanted to make Comair better. He wanted suggestions. He is very very open to suggestions. He said he's been in the PILOT'S LOUNGE till 11:00 and 11:30 the last two nights getting advice and talking with pilots and flight attendants to find out our concerns.
At one point he said gooberishly with a Jim Kerry like grin something to the effect that, "I love aviation. I'm just an aviation dork that's been lucky in this business. This is my passion"
He even drove the tug to push back one of the airplanes!
This may come as a shock to people. MIKE STUART, Senior Vice President, Aircraft Operations RESIGNED TODAY. I know he's not very well liked by many pilots so I thought people might want to hear the story I was told from a line check-airmen. This may or may not be 100% true. The story as I was told from my Captain today who is a very respected Line Check-Airman at Comair is this:
Fred has talked to many, many people and asked how to improve Comair. He's been talking almost every day since he's been here to pilots, flight attendants, rampers, and all other employees. Many complained about the APUs being deferred for the maximum 10 days even in the 100 degree summers and -20 degree winters. It's RIDICULOUS and we all know it. He told Mike Stuart a while back to arrange to have the APUs working within 2 days of the deferral. Mike Stuart supposedly did NOTHING to make this happen. Fred didn't like this.
He told Mike to listen to him and wanted them to develop a relationship of trust and working together OR that Mike Stuart could RESIGN. Mike Stuart then resigned.
Thought those that hadn't heard that would be interested to hear it. He's Don Osmondson's ,the VP of Flt Ops, boss to those that haven't heard of him. Crazy.
Good luck to all at Comair no matter what happens at Comair.
Oh and what will happen at Comair if the vote comes down NO on this????
Anybody think Delta won't just to prove their point let Comair shrink as the planes reach the end of their lives. I personally think they will just to keep their WHIPSAW game alive. Should Comair become the first to suffer from the whipsaw?? I hope it doesn't end up that way. ASA, Skywest, and CHQ have all gotten growth at Comair's expense. Granted ASA pilots had absolutely no choice and I hold no grudges against you guys.
I think it's time to stop protecting the profession and protect ourselves!
Jet
The first year F.O.s would not get stuck at the 1st year pay rate. When they get off PROBATION, they will go to the second year pay which is I believe around $37.00 an hour.
I think you believed they would be stuck at first year pay. Going to second year pay isn't a bad deal for the junior F.O.s. If anything they have the most to benefit. They will get 2nd year pay and be off reserve very, very quickly with the hiring of approximately 400 pilots.
The bottom 200 F.O.s CURRENTLY on the Comair list will all be off reserve, for which currently there is no end, and the Junior Lineholders and commuters will benefit GREATLY by much much better lines(with 400 additional pilots below them they'll be half way up the F.O. list and atleast hope hope for their and their families future).
I respectfully think you're concern for the JUNIOR pilots is simply misguided. I think they have more to gain than anyone on the list.
Why do you think the attrition has been coming from JUNIOR F.O.s at Comair the last year??? They had lost hope for the future. They were giving up and going to CHQ!! NO LIE. I know many many F.O.s that wish they were at CHQ and not Comair. I'm not one of them.
I talked first in a group and then one on one with Fred Butrell today in one of the wings of Concourse C.
I was impressed. He is a true leader, no lie. I DO NOT believe he's some half crazed lunatic trying to rape our contract. He came across as a leader that wanted to make Comair better. He wanted suggestions. He is very very open to suggestions. He said he's been in the PILOT'S LOUNGE till 11:00 and 11:30 the last two nights getting advice and talking with pilots and flight attendants to find out our concerns.
At one point he said gooberishly with a Jim Kerry like grin something to the effect that, "I love aviation. I'm just an aviation dork that's been lucky in this business. This is my passion"
He even drove the tug to push back one of the airplanes!
This may come as a shock to people. MIKE STUART, Senior Vice President, Aircraft Operations RESIGNED TODAY. I know he's not very well liked by many pilots so I thought people might want to hear the story I was told from a line check-airmen. This may or may not be 100% true. The story as I was told from my Captain today who is a very respected Line Check-Airman at Comair is this:
Fred has talked to many, many people and asked how to improve Comair. He's been talking almost every day since he's been here to pilots, flight attendants, rampers, and all other employees. Many complained about the APUs being deferred for the maximum 10 days even in the 100 degree summers and -20 degree winters. It's RIDICULOUS and we all know it. He told Mike Stuart a while back to arrange to have the APUs working within 2 days of the deferral. Mike Stuart supposedly did NOTHING to make this happen. Fred didn't like this.
He told Mike to listen to him and wanted them to develop a relationship of trust and working together OR that Mike Stuart could RESIGN. Mike Stuart then resigned.
Thought those that hadn't heard that would be interested to hear it. He's Don Osmondson's ,the VP of Flt Ops, boss to those that haven't heard of him. Crazy.
Good luck to all at Comair no matter what happens at Comair.
Oh and what will happen at Comair if the vote comes down NO on this????
Anybody think Delta won't just to prove their point let Comair shrink as the planes reach the end of their lives. I personally think they will just to keep their WHIPSAW game alive. Should Comair become the first to suffer from the whipsaw?? I hope it doesn't end up that way. ASA, Skywest, and CHQ have all gotten growth at Comair's expense. Granted ASA pilots had absolutely no choice and I hold no grudges against you guys.
I think it's time to stop protecting the profession and protect ourselves!
Jet
Last edited:
CMRoutlaw said:
Thanks for your comments. I did warn you that it was going to be long. From my perspective and I hope yours as well, it does not matter whether or not FB is a "hatchet man" or any other name you like better. What is important is that he has made a proposal that will affect the future of all Comair pilots one way or another. I fell that he is entitled to a response. However, that response should NOT be a YES/NO vote that doesn't consider our options. That would be the same as having no union at all. This was not a "take it or leave it" proposal, it was the beginning and the introduction of a modified concept (compared to what we've heard before). We have heard what he had to say, now it is his turn to hear what we have to say. What we need, in my opinion, is an itelligent and well thought out response, not a knee jerk reaction. That's what I'm advocating.
It is just as much a big deal for senior captains, junior captains, senior F/O's and junior F/O. That was the major focus of what I had to say. We as a pilot group cannot have some members of our family that are more important than other members. We're all in this together. You don't seem to realize that.
If we protect the senior captains and ignore the most junior first officer, we have failed. If we protect the most junior first officer and do not protect the senior captains we have also failed. There is no point in giving you opportunities for advancement if that means when you get there, there is nothing left worth having. By the same token, hanging on to everything we seniors now have, and feeding you to the wolves to do it would be an equal disaster for all of us. We must find the way to balance whatever we do so that each one of us, from the most senior captain to the very last new hire on the property today, retains as much as possible of what we have. I cannot ask you to sacrifice your future so that I can keep everything that I have. You cannot ask me to give up everything I have so that you can be advanced, only to discover than when you get there, there's not much worth having. That doesn't make sense. If we are to make a sacrifice for the growth of our Company, Comair, then we must make that sacrifice together in a way that benefits all of us, as much as is possible. What I have seen of the current proposal does NOT do that. The hit on our probationary pilots would be huge compared to everyone else. That is not fair to them and we must do something to fix it.
I'm not concerned about "protecting the profession". My only concern is protecting the interests of Comair pilots fairly; all of them! I don't even know how many probationary pilots we currently have but, I do know that I can't allow them to take a $14 to $18 per hour hit, when they complete probation, just so that my hit will only be $4. That is grossly unfair. It would create a "B-scale" and divide this pilot group for the next 10 years, at a minimum. I can't agree to that.
It does not matter whether we remain a Delta subsidiary or we are spun off. Either way, the impact of an unfair solution will hurt this pilot group. If you "belong", which I assume you do, then we must work together in the interests of our group as a whole. That's how I see it.
If we allow this President or any other president of this company, now or in the future, to go around our MEC and negotiate directly with individual groups of pilots, we will set ourselves up for the perfect slaughter. That kind of thinking is not beneficial to anyone that's a Comair pilot.
If you do not trust the people that are currently running our union, then change those people to someone that you do trust. But, don't cut off your nose to spite your face by trusting your management more than you trust your fellow pilots. Sorory, but that's not smart. And the RFP was not a debacle. At that time, the decision to hold the line was the right decision.
I'm not a "hardliner". I did not ask you to "shut your mouth" and I would not want you to do that. As long as you remain a Comair pilot you have a right to express your opinion on any issue that we face and disagreement does not upset me. However, attempts to divide the pilot group against itself and create factions based on self-interest does upset me, and I will do all I can to prevent that. In truth, I resent attempts to destroy our unity far more than anything else I can think of.
The reason is simple: I know the benefits of unity. I also know the price of not having it. "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
It is time to talk with the Company. It is NOT time to sell our souls to the company store.
doh
Jump seat shrink
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2003
- Posts
- 4,017
bvt,
Explain to me how the "lowest overall cost" operater can't get any bids. Phred said we would not grow until we gave a pay cut. He is also the author of the RFP. If it was a straight bid like he said, then the "lowest overall cost" (those are Gerry Grinstein's words) would get all the flying. Ergo, Phred is lying. Or else please tell me how the "bid" failed.
P.S. Looking at my previous post I see I made a couple of typos. My apologies to the grammer gods.
Explain to me how the "lowest overall cost" operater can't get any bids. Phred said we would not grow until we gave a pay cut. He is also the author of the RFP. If it was a straight bid like he said, then the "lowest overall cost" (those are Gerry Grinstein's words) would get all the flying. Ergo, Phred is lying. Or else please tell me how the "bid" failed.
P.S. Looking at my previous post I see I made a couple of typos. My apologies to the grammer gods.
172driver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2002
- Posts
- 744
Surplus and Jet,
You both have made some excellent points. I have tried to stay quiet about "the memo" so far because, as Surplus pointed out, there could be a lot written between the lines. Seems to me that a lot of people are basing their opinions of the memo on how they feel about Mr. Buttrell.
Those who feel he is just another Lorenzo type, here to reduce labor costs, are very suspicious and almost paranoid about the memo. There is much basis for this paranoia in the history of airline labor relations. Those who have been around for a while or who have educated themselves seem to be taking a harder look at what is not stated in the memo rather than what is.
Those who are newer at the company or who are generally trusting of authority are reading this thing and wondering what all the paranoia is about. Regardless of what you think, you have to hand it to Mr. Buttrell for being extremely shrewd. He played up all of our hopes and downplayed or phrased well all of our concerns. He did get the excitement flowing. He has been all over the airport, pumping people up, glad-handing, trying to earn our confidence. A big change from past styles. A lot of people are seeing this management change as the light at the end of the tunnel and thus are willing to listen to his proposal and take it at closer to face value.
If there is a difference of opinion in the pilot group right now, I see it as a result of different levels of trust, not seniority. I am a fairly junior FO but if I have learned anything about this pilot group it's this: Comair pilots have been through a lot together and understand what it's like to be at the bottom of the list as well as the top, the bottom of the labor market as well as the top. They have been through battles with management and bear the scars. The senior guys have never sold the juniors down the river and vice versa. Our contract is the best in the industry but, by far, the biggest gap on the pay scale between us and other airlines is at the FO level. Every other regional has thrown their FO's under the bus.
Thus, I trust the senior guys not to throw away my shot at an upgrade or a stable career and I hope they trust me not to slash their pay for my own self-interest. We must wait and see exactly what this proposal contains when put into 'lawyer-ese.'
The MEC knows what our wish list is and I have no doubt they are hammering Fred with it right now. If the proposal is indeed simple and straightforward, as Fred asserts, it should be no problem to get 1st yr guys to 2nd yr pay, guarantee a delivery schedule with snapbacks and retro pay, keep 401k and vacation accrual progressing normally, assure that these are growth airframes, not replacements, etc. Write it all up as it appears if you interpret the memo in the most favorable manner, hand it to Fred, have him and GG sign it, and we've got a deal, all in less than 3 wks. If not, then I'm afraid Fred will have lost some trust from his supporters. We shall see...
On another note, at the risk of becoming Surplus-esque:
The CL65 is a wonderful airplane for 100-400 NM markets. Huge improvement over the turboprops. However, we are misusing the poor things. They were meant to do CVG-TYS in the mid 20's, not JFK-MCI in the mid 30's. We're stretching passenger and aircraft endurance limits and spreading too little revenue too thin on those legs.
The 170 is a very nice fit and the logical next step for the 'regionals.' Better range, more comfort, and first class for the all important business traveller. Make no mistake, Delta sees this and WILL operate many of these airplanes. For once, they are being smart and proactive. I believe we must do the same as the 170's will be THE growth aircraft for DCI and we would like to have some of that action.
Do I think we should have to give something up to grow an already profitable company? No. All we are doing is giving up our money to allow them more profit in order to buy more assets to gain more profit. In a perfect world, this would never happen. In fact, it's ridiculous and would be laughed at in any other industry.
Do I think we are willing to? Yes. Alas, it is not a perfect world. Actually, I think the press release about the first 16 170's that went to Republic made a lot of sense. As much as we would like to pretend we are a separate entity from DAL, we are not, especially when it comes to securing financing. As I said, Delta is going to operate these planes. Republic is able to provide the financing thus they got the planes.
Would Delta rather see us get them? Probably so as we provide them a bigger profit margin. Do they want us to have them bad enough to just give them to us, regardless of our 'contentious labor union?' I don't think so. Can they finance them without our givebacks? That, I don't know. Will they? NO! Those who are saying we will get these planes no matter what we do are fooling themselves. Management does not like to be made to look soft or stupid. They will let us stagnate indefinitely if we want to be stubborn.
So, it is up to us. We must see the negotiated proposal, not the memo, and decide. What are they asking for? What are we getting in return? What will happen if we say no?
You both have made some excellent points. I have tried to stay quiet about "the memo" so far because, as Surplus pointed out, there could be a lot written between the lines. Seems to me that a lot of people are basing their opinions of the memo on how they feel about Mr. Buttrell.
Those who feel he is just another Lorenzo type, here to reduce labor costs, are very suspicious and almost paranoid about the memo. There is much basis for this paranoia in the history of airline labor relations. Those who have been around for a while or who have educated themselves seem to be taking a harder look at what is not stated in the memo rather than what is.
Those who are newer at the company or who are generally trusting of authority are reading this thing and wondering what all the paranoia is about. Regardless of what you think, you have to hand it to Mr. Buttrell for being extremely shrewd. He played up all of our hopes and downplayed or phrased well all of our concerns. He did get the excitement flowing. He has been all over the airport, pumping people up, glad-handing, trying to earn our confidence. A big change from past styles. A lot of people are seeing this management change as the light at the end of the tunnel and thus are willing to listen to his proposal and take it at closer to face value.
If there is a difference of opinion in the pilot group right now, I see it as a result of different levels of trust, not seniority. I am a fairly junior FO but if I have learned anything about this pilot group it's this: Comair pilots have been through a lot together and understand what it's like to be at the bottom of the list as well as the top, the bottom of the labor market as well as the top. They have been through battles with management and bear the scars. The senior guys have never sold the juniors down the river and vice versa. Our contract is the best in the industry but, by far, the biggest gap on the pay scale between us and other airlines is at the FO level. Every other regional has thrown their FO's under the bus.
Thus, I trust the senior guys not to throw away my shot at an upgrade or a stable career and I hope they trust me not to slash their pay for my own self-interest. We must wait and see exactly what this proposal contains when put into 'lawyer-ese.'
The MEC knows what our wish list is and I have no doubt they are hammering Fred with it right now. If the proposal is indeed simple and straightforward, as Fred asserts, it should be no problem to get 1st yr guys to 2nd yr pay, guarantee a delivery schedule with snapbacks and retro pay, keep 401k and vacation accrual progressing normally, assure that these are growth airframes, not replacements, etc. Write it all up as it appears if you interpret the memo in the most favorable manner, hand it to Fred, have him and GG sign it, and we've got a deal, all in less than 3 wks. If not, then I'm afraid Fred will have lost some trust from his supporters. We shall see...
On another note, at the risk of becoming Surplus-esque:
The CL65 is a wonderful airplane for 100-400 NM markets. Huge improvement over the turboprops. However, we are misusing the poor things. They were meant to do CVG-TYS in the mid 20's, not JFK-MCI in the mid 30's. We're stretching passenger and aircraft endurance limits and spreading too little revenue too thin on those legs.
The 170 is a very nice fit and the logical next step for the 'regionals.' Better range, more comfort, and first class for the all important business traveller. Make no mistake, Delta sees this and WILL operate many of these airplanes. For once, they are being smart and proactive. I believe we must do the same as the 170's will be THE growth aircraft for DCI and we would like to have some of that action.
Do I think we should have to give something up to grow an already profitable company? No. All we are doing is giving up our money to allow them more profit in order to buy more assets to gain more profit. In a perfect world, this would never happen. In fact, it's ridiculous and would be laughed at in any other industry.
Do I think we are willing to? Yes. Alas, it is not a perfect world. Actually, I think the press release about the first 16 170's that went to Republic made a lot of sense. As much as we would like to pretend we are a separate entity from DAL, we are not, especially when it comes to securing financing. As I said, Delta is going to operate these planes. Republic is able to provide the financing thus they got the planes.
Would Delta rather see us get them? Probably so as we provide them a bigger profit margin. Do they want us to have them bad enough to just give them to us, regardless of our 'contentious labor union?' I don't think so. Can they finance them without our givebacks? That, I don't know. Will they? NO! Those who are saying we will get these planes no matter what we do are fooling themselves. Management does not like to be made to look soft or stupid. They will let us stagnate indefinitely if we want to be stubborn.
So, it is up to us. We must see the negotiated proposal, not the memo, and decide. What are they asking for? What are we getting in return? What will happen if we say no?
jetflyer said:
The proposal, as published in the memo, is not clear on that. If you are correct, that would satisfy me with respect to that particular concern.
I did not necessarily believe that would happen but based on what I've seen, in writing, it could easily happen. If you are correct and the probationary pilots would go to increment pay at the end of probation, regardless of when a freeze begins, I say again I would personally be ok with that part.
I recognize all the QOL enhancement you mention as being of considerable value. If there is growth, those things would be realized and the benefit is acknowledged. However, there is more to the book than the cover. Just as our decision should not be allowed to harm FO's more than others it also should not favor first officers more than others. That is why the details must be worked out and all options considered.
Perhaps my concern for the junior pilots is not justified due to lack of information but it is not misguided.
The only source of information that I have is the memo from Mr. Buttrell and his ad hoc statements, both of which generated my concerns. If you have better information that's great. However, one of the things I have learned over time, the hard way, is that you can believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see. I am therefore extremely suspicious of promises and have little faith in "the big picture" when it is not backed up with contractual details. As my mother would have said, "the proof of the pudding is the pot". I've been in this business long enough to learn that you don't pay good money for wishes or promises, you exchange it only for hard data and solid contracts.
None of the questions or concerns that I have expressed are intended to generate the rejection of a legitimate proposal. However, before I'm willing to sign on the dotted line, I would like to see the concepts of the proposal translated to something I can chew on. Promises are made to be broken. Contractual language offers at least some modicum of security. That's what I want. In my view, only successful negotiations can produce a finished product; not blind sided proposals without detail.
No offense intended but those who have "lost hope for the future" as the result of one year with no growth probably don't have the stomach for this business in the first place and would do better to get out of it or to go somewhere else for they make "weak sisters". Likewise those that would feel better at CHQ should head in that direction post haste. I'm not willing to make any sacrifices for folks that don't have a stake in this airline. It may sound cruel to some but, as I tried to say earlier, to me, this is not about "preserving the profession" for somebody else (who wouldn't do that for me) nor is it about helping anyone to get PIC time so that he/she can go somewhere else. I don't hate or dislike those that seek what they percieve to be greener pastures. But, I have no desire to help pay their way. On the other hand I am willing to invest in the future of Comair and of Comair pilots.
I do not believe in the idea that pilots can buy growth with their compensation. However, I do believe that long-term growth is necessary for the health of a Company and I am ameanable to helping my Company stay in the running. Therefore, I am willing to invest in the growth of Comair for the benefit of Comair pilots, not for the benefit of those using this airline as a waypoint to another. Those folks can invest in themselves.
Like any sensible investor, I need to understand what I'm investing in, what the reasonably expected return on my investment will be, how and when that return will be realized and the details surrounding the transaction. It is not enough to whisper "it's such a deal" in my ear. I won't buy promises but I will invest in security. There is no future in throwing good money after bad. There's a bright future from a well made investment.
I like people with "passion" but only when they are females. After a while however, the passion wears off and you begin to focus on whether or not she can cook. There is nothing passionate about a turkey from which the giblets were not removed before the baking, a flat souffle or the taste of burnt toast. Passion has long been the nemesis of the airline pilot. It has never produced a successful airline, a career without furlough, a big pay check or a bountiful retirement. Those goodies come from clear thinking, sound judgement, limited risk taking and prudent investment. In contrast, too much passion usually produces a large alimony payment.
Impressive.
If FB can be credited with this he has won many, many points. Now if he can follow that up with the departure of the "pied Piper" we can order a few Pizzas and celebrate in Ops.
I think you might want to do a little more thinking. If "the profession" is destroyed or made undesirable there will be nothing to protect ourselves for. When it stands alone, self interest has little or no value as an investment. I think you may have unwittingly revealed a chink in your armour. I ask only that you think with more depth.
Nindiri
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2002
- Posts
- 1,141
If it passes, will people be willing to negotiate again in a year or two to get the newly hired 400 pilots off of reserve? I'm not saying you should or should not, just saying that it's a decision you'll be faced with in the near future because the bottom of the list will always be on reserve. Do you think that the economic picture a couple of years from now will give you more leverage to gain additional growth without further contract freezes?
BluDevAv8r
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 985
172driver,
Excellent post sir. You have captured the essence of what I've been trying to say. And, more importantly, you have made some high quality points of your own that I had neglected. [Even at the risk of Surplus-esque ... LOL]. It just goes to show that CRM does work, even on a fourm. I wish I knew you personally. Perhaps I'll get lucky and we'll meet one day.
Thanks again for a quality effort.
You and I agree on those points.
Yes; in terms of money they can finance them without givebacks. There is no way we could give enough to even come close to paying, in real dollars, the leases on 35 airplanes with givebacks. However, although intangible, the psychological impact of a concessionary agreement will definitely help. It has a lot of "good will" value to the lender.
Although I don't like to say it, the answer to your "will they" is just as you say; NO. If we stonewall, their reaction is almost certain to be very much as you predict, and for the very reasons you state. While they now have a different CEO from the one during our strike, and a different President, we must not forget that senior management officials may develop different business plans than those of other sernior managers, but where the rubber meets the road in labor relations, their thought process is not much different. It is more about power than it is about money.
Don't forget, during our strike they took a $700 million dollar hit over 89 days to save $50 million over 5 years. It wasn't about the money then, it was about the power. If they are rejected out of hand, they will do it again, and this time it will be much cheaper for them. Result: we'll take it in the shorts.
I like your closing and I like your questions. I would take the liberty of adding one more question that I believe we must answer, perhaps inserted before your last. What will happen if we say yes?
If we cannot answer that question before we sign, it will not matter much what happens if we say no.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Excellent post sir. You have captured the essence of what I've been trying to say. And, more importantly, you have made some high quality points of your own that I had neglected. [Even at the risk of Surplus-esque ... LOL]. It just goes to show that CRM does work, even on a fourm. I wish I knew you personally. Perhaps I'll get lucky and we'll meet one day.
Thanks again for a quality effort.
You and I agree on those points.
Yes; in terms of money they can finance them without givebacks. There is no way we could give enough to even come close to paying, in real dollars, the leases on 35 airplanes with givebacks. However, although intangible, the psychological impact of a concessionary agreement will definitely help. It has a lot of "good will" value to the lender.
Although I don't like to say it, the answer to your "will they" is just as you say; NO. If we stonewall, their reaction is almost certain to be very much as you predict, and for the very reasons you state. While they now have a different CEO from the one during our strike, and a different President, we must not forget that senior management officials may develop different business plans than those of other sernior managers, but where the rubber meets the road in labor relations, their thought process is not much different. It is more about power than it is about money.
Don't forget, during our strike they took a $700 million dollar hit over 89 days to save $50 million over 5 years. It wasn't about the money then, it was about the power. If they are rejected out of hand, they will do it again, and this time it will be much cheaper for them. Result: we'll take it in the shorts.
I like your closing and I like your questions. I would take the liberty of adding one more question that I believe we must answer, perhaps inserted before your last. What will happen if we say yes?
If we cannot answer that question before we sign, it will not matter much what happens if we say no.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Last edited:
172driver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2002
- Posts
- 744
It just depends what's on the table, conditions of the economy and the company at the time. We are not currently negotiating solely to get people off of reserve, by the way.
Some see this as a possible avenue to kickstart a stagnant company which has been ruthlessly undercut in a highly competitive market. There is no indication that DAL has any motivation to grow us now or in the future without some kind of concession on our part. Our competitors have already accepted much less and DAL has shown that they are more than happy to reward them.
If the proposal shakes out as written, we still have an industry leading contract. I have no doubt that we would accept no less than that. All we can ask is for other groups to do the same when their next turn comes up, which leads nicely into the second question.
If we go into negotiations in 01/06, as scheduled, what do we have to bargain with? We are already at the top and have been for five years. Our competitors have fallen short and are growing like wildfire as a result. If we are able to trade pay raises and our amendable date for a little growth now, it will give said competitors a chance to show some cojones and top us, give us some movement, introduce us to the soon to be growing 170 market, and possibly allow us to negotiate in a more favorable climate.
Or...they could lowball again and we'd all continue this lovely spiral. I have more faith than that, however. I am not a big CHQ hater. They achieved big gains last time, not industry leading, but they had a long way to go and were a much smaller carrier than they will be next time. If it happens again though...grrr.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
