CMR on the move

[doh]

Michael,

Exactly, which is why once we start asking the right questions, I think Phred will stop hanging out in the pilot lounge!

 

[skyslug]

Reading this thread is hilarious but it's getting painful! Geez guys...just sit down, have a Fat Tire and wait for our MEC to do it's work and get back to us. Speculation based on "A captain said he heard..." (third hand information) is going to do more harm than good.

Email your reps or call them if you have specific needs/wants/concerns.

All these "theories" (folks who say they KNOW (what will happen because...)about our future if we don't vote yes/no are a bunch of bunk. We don't know what will happen! yet...

Those who say we'll get the planes anyways (generally described as the 'hard liners')...what magic 8-ball do you derive your accurate and future-vision information from? I respect your passion but tone it down a bit and back your rhetoric up with facts.

Those who say we'll whither up and die a slow and painful death (generally described as the kool aid drinkers) if we don't take managements "proposal" (what ever that may be at the time) just go out and take a breath of fresh air and relax.

Those who say they spoke to Fred and/or members of our union or MEC and can decipher the truth hidden within the negotiations (!) by the way Fred parts his hair or the way an MEC members blows his nose or inflects certain words are really searching for answers. I can't blame you.

These answers (like Mr. Surplus has said in a bazillion words -I enjoy reading your posts by the way and respect your opinion) will come as soon as our MEC and MGT get down to business and negotiate and possibly agree to something we as a pilot group can vote on. Until then we need to keep our bitterness, fears and imagination in check.

 

[surplus1]

Nobody chooses to write a $10,000 check on a gamble if they truly have a choice.

That's an interesting observation that I can't resist.

It's seems to make sense that "nobody chooses to write a $10,000 check on a gamble." Nevertheless there are people on this board that want to write a $10 million dollar check (vote YES) .... based only on the "promises" of a fellow named Fred Buttrell, a fellow that we don't know and who has no track record (except his contributions to the current stagnation of Comair).

Isn't that a much bigger gamble?

You got lucky. You took the easy road and just got lucky.

Are we going to "get lucky" by a hasty "yes" vote and blind acceptance of a "proposal" that is extremely vague and offers no guarantees whatever?

Yes, I know that Buttrell promised we would get 35 different airframes, ten "new" CL65s and 25 "additional" (perhaps replacements, perhaps add on's).

I have to ask, again. Where does Mr. Buttrell get the authority to guarantee new aircraft for Comair? Who will keep the promises that he is making? The aircraft we have are owned by Delta, not by Comair. Any new aircraft will be purchased by Delta, not Comair. Who in Delta is going to back Mr. Buttrell's "proposal" and promises by signing on the dotted line?

If we do get the promised aircraft, who is going to guarantee that Delta Air Lines will not reallocate those aircraft to another DC carrier in the future?

When will those who see this proposal as their "opportunity to upgrade" be able to do so, when they are "frozen" by a 30-month seat lock? Will the opportunity still be there or will it be already filled? Who will fill it?

Smell the coffee guys, there's a lot that's hidden under the table by this "proposal".

I'll give Buttrell credit for one thing. He has found a way to "force" concessionary negotiations on this pilot group. Why? One reason and one reason only ..... a segment of the pilot group is willing to give up our solidarity in exchange for promises made by a stranger that we have no logical reason to trust. A stranger who does not have the power to make good on his promises, without the co-signature of Delta Air Lines.

Anybody have some answers?.

 

[surplus1]

Another question:

If all of Comair pilots are frozen in a 30-month seat lock, which is included in Buttrell's "proposal", who among the coming "new hires" will be available to fill those upgrade vacancies?

If Comair FO's are locked into their seats for 30-months how will they be eligible to bid on the new vacancies? If Comair pilots currently on the list can't bid, will there be "junior manning"? If there is junior manning, who will be "junior"? Will it be those that are here now or will it be those that are coming?

Is there any possibility that it just might be a group of people with "preferential hiring" privileges?

Think out of the box .... please.

 

[737 Pylt]

Another question:

If all of Comair pilots are frozen in a 30-month seat lock, which is included in Buttrell's "proposal", who among the coming "new hires" will be available to fill those upgrade vacancies?

If Comair FO's are locked into their seats for 30-months how will they be eligible to bid on the new vacancies? If Comair pilots currently on the list can't bid, will there be "junior manning"? If there is junior manning, who will be "junior"? Will it be those that are here now or will it be those that are coming?

Is there any possibility that it just might be a group of people with "preferential hiring" privileges?

Think out of the box .... please.

Nice rjdc style of thinking surplus! Please get over yourself. If any furloughees choose to get hired by CMR they would go to the bottom of the seniority list! Your propoganda mentality must have your blood pressure sky high!
737

 

[Rabble]

Personally i'm just stunned that he's comparing pay-for-training with pattern bargaining.

Wow.

 

[surplus1]

Nice rjdc style of thinking surplus! Please get over yourself. If any furloughees choose to get hired by CMR they would go to the bottom of the seniority list! Your propoganda mentality must have your blood pressure sky high!
737

Are you saying you would turn down a left seat if you were drafted into the position because no one else was eligible? You would still be at "the bottom of the list". So are all those USA pilots, sitting in the left seat. What does it matter where you are "on the list" when it has nothing to do with where you sit?

Is what I'm getting from your guy (FB) propaganda or should I believe it's gospel?

 

[ThisistheDream]

A seat wont lock you from upgrading. any Fo that is seat locked is not prevented from upgrading. EXAMPLE a new hire gets hired into the 70 seat FO, they would be locked in that seat for 30 months as an FO. The wouldnt be able to bid for the 50 seat or other FO spots, but they could Bid and get a CA seat in any Aircraft, and when they get that they would be locked there for another 30 months.

 

[surplus1]

A seat wont lock you from upgrading. any Fo that is seat locked is not prevented from upgrading.

Is that a fact or are you just making an assumption?

If it's a fact, what is the source of your information?

 

[ThisistheDream]

I dont know for a fact, but from my previous experince with a seat lock that is how it would work. IF they didnt let anyone upgrade becuase they locked eveyone in thier current seat how would they fill the CA seats for the NEW aircraft? I see what you are trying to say that they would lock us for 30 months and hire others to come in and fly the new aircraft out of seniority etc. That is a whole different ballgame in that situation, which would probally get 100% NO vote if that was how the lock was going to be used. The freeze for 30 months like I have seen before prevents training cost by having ex. an 50 seat FO bid for the 70 seat or vise versa after only a yr or 2 in the seat. I would think that with the seat lock, once you upgrade to what ever plane then you would be seat locked there for 30 months. as far as current 50 seat CA, that would be locked and now with the addition of new 70 seaters i am not sure if they would be seat locked to stay a 50 CA for the 30 months freeze, in this situation usually the 50 Seat CA that was prevented from biding the 70 seat for a seat lock would get 70 seat pay as soon as a junior pilot to them was upgraded in the 70 seater while they still flew the 50 seater that way the company only pays for one training event not two.

 

[FlyComAirJets]

RFP Version 2.0 Beta Release

Portfolio Phred's latest trial balloon is little more than a slightly reworked version of last year's RFP except he chose to float this by the pilot group first.

There are no real details to haggle over here since it is merely a "proposal," but I have to say how impressed I am by those who point out the ominous implications of something as innocent sounding as a 'pay freeze' or a 'seat lock.'

Setting an arbitrary date to sign off on it only means that he needs to talk to our union leaders -- FAST!

It may all then be moot, but then, I guess we might have to wait for the ugrade, RFP Version 3.0

 

[P38JLightning]

details

Surplus,

I am beginning to detect somewhat of a condesending tone in your posts, which however long they tend to be, is usualy something they don't contain.

Reading between the lines, its easy to tell you do not like this current "proposal" and are leaning (or already decided) towards not conceeding (yes thats what it would be) a freeze for the 35 growth airframe potential. That's fine.

While you bring up some very important questions and "what-ifs", you neglect to give the potential "yes voters" the benefit of the doubt. Without exception, every potential yes voter I've talked to will only vote yes if this proposal contains the appropriate language, as written or agreed upon by our union, that would take care of the specific concerns you appear to be raising.

And as for the freeze, even if it applies to new hires, which I doubt it would, but even if it did, we have tons of 3000 hour pilots who have been here more than 30 months in their current equipment that would still love the chance to upgrade and would do it as soon as they could. I'll play consipracy theory for a monent and say that if FB wants a 30 month freeze for all starting from DOS of this freeze, then all future positions would have to go outside our list. But, its pretty hard to immagine this detail getting past our MEC, our negoting comittee, ALPA EF&A and legal, and our members. Its good to bring up such theoreticals, but as far as a serious drawback, I'd call that a big swing and a miss. It would be like saying what if FB wants language prohibiting anyone born west of the mississippi from ever being captain? Since we haven't seen his proposal, we have to watch out for that. Ok fine, technicaly I am correct, but no one is losing sleep over that are they?

Again on the seat lock, provided there are no bear traps in there as you suggest (which we will figure out, don't worry) I think FB is trying to prevent 50 FO's from going to the right seat of the 70 in a year, which they can, then go to the left seat in a year, which they can now, then going to the left seat of a 70 seater in a year, which they can, then going to the left seat of the other 70 seater in a year, all currently allowed in our PWA at the moment. Of course, when you go from 70 CA to 70 CA (different planes) at that point you get a 36 month freeze, but by that time you've been in training a quarter to a third of the time for 4 or 5 years and the company has spent far more training you than what's reasonable.

Now if that's what FB wants to prevent, I have no problem with that. But, as always, I will read the language and trust our union leadership, who BTW FB speaks for me, and make my own decision, as will way more of this pilot group than I believe you are insinuating will do the same.

 

[737 Pylt]

Are you saying you would turn down a left seat if you were drafted into the position because no one else was eligible?

This is not an option as it hasn't even been discussed!

You would still be at "the bottom of the list". So are all those USA pilots, sitting in the left seat. What does it matter where you are "on the list" when it has nothing to do with where you sit?

Again, J4J hasn't even been discussed, and is a dead issue. Why you keep bringing it up is beyond me! Maybe you should try slamming ASA more, it seems you make more friends that way!

Is what I'm getting from your guy (FB) propaganda or should I believe it's gospel?

My guy, hardly. If you want propoganda, look no further than your pal Dan Ford. He's got lots of it!
737

 

[jetflyer]

You guys are discussing this and you shouldn't be.

The proposal says "30 MONTH SEAT FREEZE FOR NEW EQUIPMENT"

So you're only frozen if you go to the new equipment.

Jet

 

[surplus1]

Thanks P38! I like your post even though we are not 100% in agreement.

Surplus,I am beginning to detect somewhat of a condesending tone in your posts, which however long they tend to be, is usualy something they don't contain.

With all due respect you are "begining to detect" something that isn't there. I do not mean to be "condesending" at all however, I admit frustration with folks arguing for a "yes" vote on something they do not fully understand. If everyone just told FB .... our MEC will evaluate your proposal and we will consider their recommendations (or words to that effect), ...... I would be a happy camper. "My MEC speaks for me" is not a bad idea.

When management decides to bypass the MEC and negotiate directly with the pilot group, which is exactly what FB has done, I smell a rat. When a significant number of pilots appear to swallow that bait hook, line and sinker, in public and in the crew lounge, they put our own negotiators at a serious disadvantage. That is divisive and it annoys me greatly. I've tried hard to make that clear.

Do you think the "ears" listening in the crewroom and reading copies of this and other forums are all on our side? If you do, you'd better think again. That venue is being used by management to gather information that they will use against our negotiators at the bargaining table. Don't kid yourself.

Reading between the lines, its easy to tell you do not like this current "proposal" and are leaning (or already decided) towards not conceeding (yes thats what it would be) a freeze for the 35 growth airframe potential. That's fine.

You're right, I do not "like" it. I don't "like" any proposal that would cause us to give up any part of our contract. I also do not "like" the idea of conceeding anything for potential. If we are going to conceed our contract we need something definite in return, not potential. "Potential" = "promise" .... and promises aren't worth the paper they're written on.

That does not mean that I would reject it automatically. It is possible that we may need to make some changes. What I "like" and what I would do if required are not one and the same. Please note that.

I think this particular proposal was presented in an underhanded manner that was deliberately designed to create division among us. Based on what I have read in this and other forums, and what I have heard around campus, management's effort to divide has been more successful than pleases me.

I do not see management as "the enemy" but, I also do not see FB as a "friend". In my book, the only "friends" we have are each other. As I have said in other posts, there are lots of things I don't "like" about the current leadership of our union. But, if I have to choose between trusting FB or trusting our MEC (which FB has conveniently instigated), I will trust the MEC every time. They are CMR pilots too and they have to live with whatever we agree to just like the rest of us. When some of us say or imply that we trust this stranger from Atlanta more than we trust our own people (and some have said that), it curls my hair. Again, I think that is divisive and hurts us all.

While you bring up some very important questions and "what-ifs", you neglect to give the potential "yes voters" the benefit of the doubt. Without exception, every potential yes voter I've talked to will only vote yes if this proposal contains the appropriate language, as written or agreed upon by our union, that would take care of the specific concerns you appear to be raising.

You make valid points. I would be more than willing to give the benefit of the doubt to "potential yes voters". But, I take people at what they say. Those that are saying and with whom I have been debating aren't "potential" yes voters. They have clearly indicated a willingness to accept this proposal at face value based only on their opportunity to get off reserve and upgrade. I make no apologies for saying that I think that would be extremely foolish.

If and when the proposal has been analyzed by our negotiators and we have been given all the pros and cons together with the official wording, we will then know what we have and be able to make an intelligent choice. At that point, I won't have any problem with "yes" voters or "no" voters, even if I do not personally agree.

My concerns will go away when I know what is really on the table. That information has to come from our representatives, not the Buttrell propaganda machine. That is what I've been arguing for. I have been arguing against a hasty decision without due diligence. I think it is foolish to consider a proposal of this magnitude before we have it in final form. I also think that giving management the idea that we are wavering and not completely supportive of our own bargaining agents is ludicrous.

I'm not inexperienced in negotiations. When I see a blatantly obvious pig-in-a-poke, that is full of so many holes you could drive a freight train through every part of it, I am not willing to call it a "good deal". At face value, this proposal ain't a good deal. It's a promise that Butrell doesn't have the horsepower to keep even if he wants to. I don't like food without salt and the flavor of this "proposal", as it stands, is decidedly bland.

And as for the freeze, even if it applies to new hires, which I doubt it would, but even if it did, we have tons of 3000 hour pilots who have been here more than 30 months in their current equipment that would still love the chance to upgrade and would do it as soon as they could. I'll play consipracy theory for a monent and say that if FB wants a 30 month freeze for all starting from DOS of this freeze, then all future positions would have to go outside our list. But, its pretty hard to immagine this detail getting past our MEC, our negoting comittee, ALPA EF&A and legal, and our members. Its good to bring up such theoreticals, but as far as a serious drawback, I'd call that a big swing and a miss. It would be like saying what if FB wants language prohibiting anyone born west of the mississippi from ever being captain? Since we haven't seen his proposal, we have to watch out for that. Ok fine, technicaly I am correct, but no one is losing sleep over that are they?

Again, you make valid points. I do not "imagine" this detail getting past our MEC or our negotiating committee. However, it has obviously (based on premature "yes" decisions) gotten past several of our members or they would not be writing what they have. It may not be a majority (I certainly hope not) but it doesn't take too many bad apples to spoil the barrel. Buttrell only needs 50% + 1 to "pass" this turkey, and the way FB wrote it and subsequently "explained" it, it is a turkey. Yes, I hope the MEC will "catch" it but it doesn't hurt to bring it to their attention. Proposals in which you have to "catch" the loopholes are not serious bargaining efforts, they are ploys. You learn that in collective bargaining 201. You learn it even better in CB 301 and 401. I have taken all those courses and I passed.

As for the credibility of ALPA's EF&A, let's just say that I would not recommend betting the farm on that. ALPA has very competent "staff" and lawyers, but their paychecks are signed by politicians whose agenda is not favorable to Comair pilots. Those politicians are the same people that tried to bypass our negotiators and our MEC with direct mailgrams urging us to accept a unsatisfactory "company offer" during our strike. Maybe you have forgotten but I have not. By the way, we voted it down and that was the right decision at the time. If you think that means I don't fully trust them, you're right. BTDT-GTS.

It happens I know how much energy and time was devoted to negotiating the system of "seat locks" (freezes) contained in our current contract. They were designed to prevent "sport bidding" and also to ensure that no pilot would be denied an opportunity to increase his pay by changing equipment. They are closely linked to the Filling of Vacancies section of our contract and affect other Sections such as Seniority and Training as well. I think they are more than adequate for that intended purpose and do not require an increase of 18 months for all pilots. Therefore, I view that part of the "proposal" as a giveaway (by the company), unnecessarily included by management. It's not a conspiracy, but I see it is a ruse. A typical bait-and-switch.

 

[surplus1]

Again on the seat lock, provided there are no bear traps in there as you suggest (which we will figure out, don't worry) I think FB is trying to prevent 50 FO's from going to the right seat of the 70 in a year, which they can, then go to the left seat in a year, which they can now, then going to the left seat of a 70 seater in a year, which they can, then going to the left seat of the other 70 seater in a year, all currently allowed in our PWA at the moment. Of course, when you go from 70 CA to 70 CA (different planes) at that point you get a 36 month freeze, but by that time you've been in training a quarter to a third of the time for 4 or 5 years and the company has spent far more training you than what's reasonable.

Perhaps you don't see a bear trap, but I do. I do NOT see why the future growth of this airline should be based on depriving a pilot of advancement through the ranks for unreasonable times. It results, indirectly, in an additional pay cut for an additional 18 months for those affected. If that were essential I could live with it but I do not see it as being essential. We've dealt with this before and we got rid of it. That shouldn't become a wasted effort due to expediency.

Everytime you increase the price of what our pilots have to "pay" for this proposed growth you make it less beneficial. The 30-month freeze increases the cost to every pilot that has a future opportunity to advance and has the side effect of circumventing the seniority provisions of the agreement. Why do we need to do that in order to grow? In my view, I do not see our current system as "unreasonable". Neitheir did the company or they wouldn't have signed off on it. I'm not looking for ways to give away more of our marbles, I'm looking for ways to keep as many as we can.

Now if that's what FB wants to prevent, I have no problem with that. But, as always, I will read the language and trust our union leadership, who BTW FB speaks for me, and make my own decision, as will way more of this pilot group than I believe you are insinuating will do the same.

IF our group stands solidly behind our negotiators, thereby giving them the power to make the best deal in our behalf, I'll be a happy camper. All of my arguments are centered on the need for solidarity. The folks I'm debating with have indicated their desire to accept the porposal as is. When we have representatives "at the table" or preparing to go there, I do not see that as benefical to the group.

What you say that YOU will do is what I am asking every pilot to do. i.e., support our union openly and publicly and let them do their job. However, that is NOT what I'm getting from the folks I'm debating. I'm getting a "rush to yes" for reasons uncertain. I see that attitude as detrimental to our welfare and I'm sure you've noticed I'm not bashful about saying so.

I don't expect our MEC to swallow my opinions about the value of this proposal. I do expect them to weigh all the options, make counter proposals, and get the best deal they can or reject the whole thing if they can't.

By the same token I, personally, am not about to swallow a Buttrell proposal that I do not believe he has the power to keep.

If and when Delta Air Lines is willing to guarantee that these new aircraft will in fact be delivered and that they will not later be transferred to someone else, I'm willing to talk and listen and maybe even give. However, should they change their minds after only a few are delivered, then I want our contract back, all of it. As I said in an earlier post, I'm willing to pay for job security. I'm not willing to pay for "potential" without job security.


I also don't "like" the EMB-170 ploy. IF the company intends to acquire that aircraft for use by Comair, then they need to put the cards on the table and let us know clearly what we're negotiating for. And please don't tell me they don't know, because they do. That kind of a decision is not made in a vacuum. An honest man has no need for smoke and mirrors and no need to give us a dog-and-pony show of aircraft that they don't intend to buy. If management wants me to consider the -170 as a part of this equation, then come clean an put it on the table. Otherwise, spare me the BS.

If they are honestly "uncertain" about the equipment choice, then make the bargaing contingent upon that uncertainty. This really isn't rocket science.

Buttrell has stated that the EMB-170 is a "wish". Well, I don't give up my contract on the basis of "wishes", and I hope you won't either. If it's not real, why mention it at all? Simple, it's a come-on. Is that supposed to inspire my "trust"? Well, it does just the opposite for me. There is no need to dazzle us with BS; let's deal with facts. He's (FB) asking for big bucks from us; we need to know exactly what we're getting in return.

The devil does lie in the details and I am urging ALL OF US to wait for those details and to support our MEC until they are made available to all of us.

What makes you think that's too much to ask?

 

[CMRoutlaw]

Response to Surplus

Surplus,
Oh brother....I'd love to spend a few hours responding to this but it is my day off so I will try to be concise.

CMRoutlaw,
I have already stated that, in my opinion, the unity of the Comair pilots is our greatest asset in this and in all other decisions that we face together. It is also my opinion, based on your posts, that you do not share that view.

No, it isn’t because you disagree with me. It is because you support your position with words that clearly indicate to me that you would like to accept this proposal at face value because you perceive that it will be beneficial to your segment of the pilot population. Yes, I think that is divisive.

I want to take the proposal at face value becaue it would help me and that makes me a divider? First (I will give you that I didn't communicate this before) I make the assumption in my arguement that there would be protections built in to make sure no trickery comes from this and that should things not pan out, we would have the necessary mechanisms to snap back. This is a fair assumption because the proposal would have to go through our MEC negotiating committee and they would have to approve it for a pilot vote. I'm not sure I trust them to be as open minded as I would prefer on this matter, I do trust them to bring a rock solid agreement with protections or at least as good as they could make it. So I do trust the MEC you say?? Not so fast...I think they are a bit paranoid about anything management proposes and I worry (as do others) that they could say no to a proposal that was bargained in good faith by management simply because they subscribe to some grand conspiracy theory. My evidence...I've heard MEC members describe Fred as Hitler to Satan and everything in between. Is this the attitude of being open minded, searching for a spirit of cooperation with the company that we want as representatives? I'm a little skeptical. It sounds to be like some leftover paranoia from the days of the strike. Anyway to sum it up, if this comes to a vote I know it will have the necessary protections so I don't want to take it at face value.

OK, so you truly believe that. I accept your opinion but not your premise. I do not think that your opinion is based on the facts available to you because there are no facts. It is all conjecture at this point. What exactly would we be saying “yes” to? You don’t even know the details of the proposal yet you are apparently willing to give up our contract for a promise, made by a man that doesn’t have the power to keep it? Come on man, think!

Tell me what that will get all of us, as opposed to what you’ve already told me it will get you. I’m more than willing to listen to whatever you have to say, but all I’ve heard so far is that you (and a relatively few others) will get off reserve or upgrade and that the rest of us will be doomed if we do not accept this proposal at face value. I do not understand how you expect me to agree with that thinking and I can’t. Sorry, but there is more to negotiations than that, much more. Blindly accepting a concessionary proposal that no one understands completely does not equal “growth”. But, it does have the potential of equaling suicide (in the extreme) and stupidity in the norm; possibly both.

Half of your arguments against me here are based on your assumption that I want to accept Fred's proposal at face value. Hopefully I cleared that up and you understand that I assume this will be a rock solid agreement before it even comes to a vote. You ask what would this proposal get you? The real value of this deal is getting the E-170 on property. And to that point, I think we should do everything we can in order to gurantee that it's the E-170 and not more CL-70's. Anyone can clearly see that the market for 50 seat RJs has been saturated. When Fred tells us this, it's not some big conspiracy or one he's trying to pull over you...it's the simple truth. Simply look at the market value of an RJ for sale and you can see that. The demand for growth in the next 10-15 years will be in the 70-110 seat category of aircraft so should we not do everything we can to position ourselves for the E-170? I've heard Captains say they don't care what the additional 70 seaters will be (E vs. CRJ) but what if the E-190 ever makes its way to Delta Connection? Who's going to fly it? Whoever can make the transition easiest or whoever is already flyinng the E-170. So I'm tellling you we need this aircraft.
Delta's credit rating is horrible so they ask us to throw them a bone and take a freeze in order to get stability over the next three years to secure financing...what's so bad about that? Even if we could get it without a freeze, do you reallly want to take that chance? We take it, we get a future. We say no, we take the chance of everyone of them going to Chatauqua....is that really good for DCI? Is that good for you in the long run Surplus?

These are some of my questions (I’m sure I’ll think of more).

1. What part of this “proposal” is smoke and mirrors and what part of it is real?

2. What is the real difference of beginning a “freeze” now as opposed to beginning it on 6/23/05? (And yes, I know what happens on 6/22/05)

3. Will those dollars $$ be enough to justify the growth of Comair by 35 aircraft? ($600 millions + -)

All of these questions would be answered in the final proposal if it came down to a rafification vote. You want me to answer them...I'm not the company, I cant.

4. If we do not “give back” our dollars, will that justify or result in the end of Comair?

Do you really want to take that chance?

5. Why do we need a 30-month seat lock?

Stability for lenders

6. Will the extra 18 months make the difference between growth for CMR, status quo for CMR or result in the end of CMR?

7. What is the real difference between a one-year freeze that lasts for 4 years, beginning on 5/22/05 and ending on 6/22/10, and a three-year freeze that begins on 6/23/05 and ends on 6/22/10?

8. Who will “guarantee” the delivery of the 35 promised “new aircraft”? Will it be Fred Buttrell or will it be Mr. G.G., CEO of Delta?

9. If the answer to # 7 is Fred Buttrell, what will happen if GG doesn’t agree?

10. What will happen if only 5 of the promised new aircraft are delivered, instead of 35? Will the “Agreement” snap-back?

11. If it does snap-back, what will it go back to? Will it be 6/22/04 or will it be 6/22/05?

12. Will it snap-back in its entirety or will the snap-back apply only to pay rates?

13. If this proposal is legitimate and not just a threat, what is the dollar value of the investment that Comair pilots are being asked to make and how does it compare to the dollar value of the return on their investment that Comair pilots can expect to realize?

14. What is the reason for the introduction of the EMB170 “carrot” when the maker of the proposal himself admits that it is only a “wish” on his part?

Once again I trust that all of these would be taken care of through protections by the negotiating committee. I do agree that the deal should hinge on getting the E-170 because that's the key to the future so no E-170, no deal. I haven't changed my positions, hopefully however, I've expanded and defined for you what those positions are. If Fred is sincere and the deal goes through as advertised, yes it would be good for me but I think it would be just as good for you as well. By the way it would not be enough aircraft for me to upgrade so don't think my position is all about me getting a big pay raise.

You may call me divisive but I have to speak up for those of us who feel differently. There are so many people at this company who want to immediately say 'NO' and not consider any offer from management, somebody has to balance them out. You describe me as a knee jerk yes man but I feel I have to be very vocal to counter the four knee jerk no men for every one of us. I don't subcribe to those who say that management is ALWAYS against you. Smart mangers know that loyalty to employees pays big dividends in the long run though I admit smart mangers are in short suplly these days. I've read 'Confessions of a Union Buster' and the only problem is that many of the steps a Buster takes look EXACTLY what you would expect a good manager to take. It's not until he betrays his employees that his true colors come out. Meeting with employees doesn't automatically qualify Fred as a 'union buster' because that is what I would expect a good CEO to do. Until he is proven as a liar here at Comair, I will trust that he is acting in good faith. And no, I'm not accepting his proposal at face value, I'm simply trying to rally the troops who want to be open-minded and optimistic about our future. Maybe that's devisive but that's democracy.
Too much flightinfo....must go outside....

 

[cl65capt]

Geez, I know this is a big deal and all but I dont suppose we could keep the posts to 500 words or less? My eyes start to hurt after a while.

 

[AFELLOWAVIATOR]

Until he is proven as a liar here at Comair, I will trust that he is acting in good faith.

That whole RFP BS last year was a big lie. He has already proven himself a liar.

Do you honestly think that RFP was for real? Do you honestly think that they did not already know where the planes were going to go?
The ASA pilots were told they would have to leave section 6 negotiations and extend their current contract 2 years so they could have a 'chance" of getting some of those planes. THEY SAID HELL NO AND GOT THE LIONS SHARE OF THEM ANY WAY!


Yes, there is your proof. Now you can stop drinkink the kool aid.

 

[Flying Horses]

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?p=522644#post522644