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

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
CMRoutlaw said:
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.

Thanks for your response. I don't mind telling you that it has gone a long way to helping me understand your true position. I am now able to agree with many of your ideas.

What I understand you to say is that you are leaning in the direction of making some type of new agreement, contingent on it going through the MEC and including the details that are needed for any contract change. I can live with that. Please note that I never said my answer was "no". In fact I said repeatedly that we should not, IMO, reject this proposal for the sake of rejecting it. I still believe that.

I sincerely hope your fears about the MEC rejecting this due to paranoia are not well founded. If I believed that they were I would strongly recommend replacing the MEC leadership post haste. The MEC must lead the pilot group on the right path, however, in doing so it must also respond to the wishes of the pilot group. Arbitrary behavior is not acceptable and neither is lack of action. However, bargaining in good faith does not mean that agreement will be reached. The pieces of the puzzle must fall into the right places.

What I want and expect the MEC to do is analyze the proposal carefully, make counter proposals that are reasonable and come up with a solution that offers sufficient guarantees that we are not giving up any part of our contract in exchange for assumptions or promises. In other words, the value we get in return must be very close to equaling the value that we give. Further, if the company is unable to make good on its promises, then our contract must return completely to the status quo. In my opinion, that means we get ALL of the promised aircraft, not just a part of them, and we get a solid contractual assurance that what we do get cannot later be shifted to someone else.

As I have said earlier, I am willing to spend money to buy job security. If I do, then I expect to get job security. Growth alone is not job security. Growth can be here for a day then gone tomorrow. Job security is enduring. I also think, for what it's worth, that no-furlough clauses do NOT provide job security.

We agree that the Embraer product is a key ingredient. One of the things that bothers me most about the proposal is the vagueness with which that item was addressed by Mr. Butrell. If the EMB170 is "on the table" then he should come clean and say that it is. Make the proposal contingent on that aircraft type and you change the entire picture. A commitment for more CR7's doesn't offer real growth, it just offers concessions for more CR7's. CR2's are cheap but you are right, their usefulness is waning fast. Meaningful growth does require larger aircraft. The Bombardier product, including the CR9, does not appear to be the best product.

I realize that Buttrell cannot guarantee that we will get the EMB170. However, he can guarantee that if we don't, the contract will snap-back to the status quo. As I read it, that is not a part of his current proposal.

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.

OK, you've clarified and I do understand now. In that case I have no problem with your position, even if we do not agree completely on the details. You have as much right to your opinions as I have to mine and they are of equal value. I do not want you to be silent. I just want us all to stick together and I now think we're on the same page in that regard.

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.

If as you say the -170 is the "real value of this deal", then the EMB170 must be a part of the deal. If it is not, then we would be buying something that we aren't getting. The current proposal makes no guarantee (to use your word) that the EMB170 is on the table. I agree with you that it is not the same as the CR7, regardless of what other captains may think. Make the offer contingent on the addition of 25 EMB170's and you've got my attention. Take it out of the picture and I'll still listen to what you have to say but my hearing won't be nearly as keen.

Look at this objectively. We are being asked to remain at 2004 pay rates until 2010. That is not one year, it is 6 years. Where did I get 2010? Easy; move the amendable date to 2007 plus 3 years to negotiate a new deal = 2010. IF inflation stays at its current rate (a big IF) that means we will lose about 18% of the buying power of our money over that time, plus the value of our 6/22/05 scheduled raise. That's a lot of money. If I'm going to make that kind of an investment, I want something in exchange. A promise or a maybe is not enough! Performance Pay doesn't even come close.

I'm not paranoid, I don't have any conspiracy theories, I've already put the strike behind me, and I don't see management as "the enemy". Neverthless, I want real value in exchange for my investment. I think you should as well. In fact I think we ALL should, and if that is not being offered then I don't really want to play this game.

Up to now, the proposal as written does not appear to offer that value. The beverage needs more sugar, and 25 of the EMB170, in writing, might go a long way.

What is "good for DCI" (your words) is not necessarily good for Comair pilots. Call me selfish if you want but my interest does not lie in what is good for DCI. It lies in what is good for Comair pilots. It is OUR future that concerns me, not the future of DCI (which includes CHQ and SKYW and whomever comes next). The "portfolio" is as much a detriment to this "deal" as anything else. I cannot avoid noting that the author of the "portfolio" is the author of the "proposal".

Please note that I deliberately omitted ASA. They're in the same boat that we are and I would like to row with them, not against them.

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. >>> 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.

I'm quite willing to be open-minded and I also want to be optimistic. At face value, this proposal does not engender much optimism for me. It might be a light at the end of the tunnel but it might also be a train. I need to know which.

I'm very pleased to learn that you're not accepting the proposal at face value. That alleviates the majority of my concerns about what you said earlier. I'm not willing to bet on whether Fred is sincere or not sincere. The deal itself and the guarantees it offers or does not offer will ultimately determine my decision. I can't base that decision on imagined sincerity, on promises, or on good faith. I have to base it on the contents of the final agreement.

Now that you've clarified your position, I no longer think you're divisive. If I misjudged you, I apologize. My judgement was based on what you wrote, which previously did not include the reasoning of your most recent post. Since I do not know you, the only measure I have of how you think is what you say.

In the final analysis this isn't about trust, it's about business. We will all benefit from a good deal. We will all suffer from a bad one. Let's hope for the best and see that we get a good one.
 
cl65capt said:
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.

You're right, you can't suppose that. Just focus on the B717 and you won't have to worry about our word counts. They will not affect you one way or the other.
 
Any thoughts on where ALPA National will come down on this? Should be interesting.
 
surplus1 said:
Look at this objectively. We are being asked to remain at 2004 pay rates until 2010. That is not one year, it is 6 years. Where did I get 2010? Easy; move the amendable date to 2007 plus 3 years to negotiate a new deal = 2010. IF inflation stays at its current rate (a big IF) that means we will lose about 18% of the buying power of our money over that time, plus the value of our 6/22/05 scheduled raise. That's a lot of money. If I'm going to make that kind of an investment, I want something in exchange. A promise or a maybe is not enough! Performance Pay doesn't even come close.

Surplus,

Not sure if you realize or not, you WILL get LONGEVITY RAISES in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 (unless you're already at 18th year on the contract, which you may be). GRANTED it won't be the very large raise that comes with the last year of the contract, but it will cover cost of living for 2007-2010. Sorry to correct you, you just don't mention this at all.

PLUS I personally have heard Fred say he will put in WRITING, that ONE year after June 2007, so June 2008, (not sure of the wording) he will release the contract negotiations to the next phase??? Supposedly talking to others this is a big deal, if he DOES put this in writing. This would speed up the process to around the end of 2008, early 2009.

I personally think it's stupid for us to discuss any of this though. THE FLIGHT ATTENDANTS are going to VOTE NO. Every one I've spoken with is going to vote NO OR thinks it is a really bad deal. Go ask them for yourselves.

What do you guys think will happen if the FLIGHT ATTENDANTS SAY "NO" and the PILOTS SAY "YES"??

Jet
 
Since this is "believe Fred" week, I suppose we could "guess" that it doesn't matter what the FA's do since the "proposal" doesn't say it's contingent on both groups agreeing.

What makes you feel that longevity increments will apply in the years you noted? I don't see that in the proposal. What I see is a freeze of both COLA and longevity. Maybe you know something I don't.

I guess the devil is in the details after all. Lot's of promises, no guarantees, plenty smoke, several mirrors and a lot of people making decisions without facts.

Take a deep breath. It's going to get worse before it gets better. Lot's of hoops for the MEC to deal with. I don't envy them.
 
Right on, Jet. I don't quite understand how Phred got it in his head that the Flight Attendants are not only overpaid, but by an even higher percentage than the pilots (allegedly)! I think he is proposing a three or four year freeze for their payscale because compared to other regional FA's, they are way overpaid.


Should fly with them like a lead balloon.
 
Surplus,

You are right. I went back and read the proposal. It's very vague on the original MEMO of the proposal and actually doesn't address the longevity coming back.

It says "A PAY FREEZE, INCLUDING LONGEVITY INCREASES, FOR THE PERIOD OF THE CONTRACT"
Maybe he just word it vaguely on accident and meant to say after the contract expires June 2007, you get longevity increases? He really doesn't clearly say it there does he.
Maybe he's changed this part of the proposal.

Everything that has come out and the information I've heard after the original proposal paper came out has said the Longevity increases come back after June 2007.

I've talked with a union rep on this too, and he said Longevity would come back after June 2007.

Read the "Q&A session with FRED" on EPIC. They mention this on there as well about the longevity.
It says this "Our proposal calls for the longevity freeze to end after two years for the pilots and three years for the flight attendants."
This comes across much more clear than in the first MEMO from Fred.

So we will get back the longevity increases after June 2007. It's not great but the pay will not be frozen TOTALLY till 2010.

Jet
 
All mgt including Fred took a 10% pay cut. From what starting point this 10% cut is from I don't know.
 
So we will get back the longevity increases after June 2007. It's not great but the pay will not be frozen TOTALLY till 2010.

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


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

A 10% reduction in pay to include management. It was on the original letter.;)
 
Tim47SIP said:
So we will get back the longevity increases after June 2007. It's not great but the pay will not be frozen TOTALLY till 2010.

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


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

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

Make sure its a 10% reduction in TOTAL compensation!
 
jetflyer said:
Surplus,

You are right. I went back and read the proposal. It's very vague on the original MEMO of the proposal and actually doesn't address the longevity coming back.

It says "A PAY FREEZE, INCLUDING LONGEVITY INCREASES, FOR THE PERIOD OF THE CONTRACT"
Maybe he just word it vaguely on accident and meant to say after the contract expires June 2007, you get longevity increases? He really doesn't clearly say it there does he.
Maybe he's changed this part of the proposal.

Everything that has come out and the information I've heard after the original proposal paper came out has said the Longevity increases come back after June 2007.

I've talked with a union rep on this too, and he said Longevity would come back after June 2007.

Read the "Q&A session with FRED" on EPIC. They mention this on there as well about the longevity.
It says this "Our proposal calls for the longevity freeze to end after two years for the pilots and three years for the flight attendants."
This comes across much more clear than in the first MEMO from Fred.

So we will get back the longevity increases after June 2007. It's not great but the pay will not be frozen TOTALLY till 2010.
Jet

Perhaps you are correct. I don't have access to the private conversations between FB and the NC. What I do have is considerable experience in contract negotiations. I have learned that "proposals" seldom mean what they say and what they don't say is far more important. Until we have the details, in writing, we have nothing but a lot of promises, the biggest of which Fred doesn't have the power to keep. Granted, the "snap-back" is intended to cover the doubt. However, the terms of the snap-back, i.e., the "trigger" is as unclear as the rest of the proposal.

The only thing in the "proposal" that is really clear is an extension of one year in the contract amendable date.

According to the "proposal" the "freeze" is for the duration of the contract. That means that we would go into the amendable date with our pay "frozen" at 2004 levels. After 3 years + - of negotiations, it would still be at 2004 levels, unless we succeed, during negotiations, in increasing it. Translated to contract speak, that means we would be agreeing to a defacto 6-year freeze in pay rates at a minimum (3 years from 2004 - 2007, plus 3 years of negotiations with no known result). Is this a recipie for another strike?

IF, as you say, longevity increments are "recovered" after 2007, what are the mechanics of that? Once the contract amendable date has been reached, the RLA mandates maintenance of the "status quo". That means neither party can change anything (including longevity rates) while we negotiate for a new contract. How do we manage to get longevity increases without changing the "status quo"? Either Fred doesn't understand the RLA or this is hocus pocus. I suspect the former more than the latter.

In my opinion, any "freeze" requires a time-certain as to when it ends. [That's the only way you can calculate the actual cost/benefit of the freeze.] When that time/date is reached, the contract returns to its pre-freeze condition. Translated to contract speak, the 6/22/05 (scheduled bump) would then take effect, thus taking us into Section 6 (and "status quo") with 6/22/05 pay rates instead of 6/22/04 payrates. The "agreement" we sign, if any, would have to specify that the "freeze" ends before the new amendable date of 6/21/07.

If that does not happen, then the "freeze" becomes a permanent freeze of unknown duration and no increments in pay rates would/could occur until a new contract is settled. There is no way to tell when that might be. Therefore, there is no way to calculate the actual dollar value of the "freeze"; not to the pilots and not to the company. That's a very poor way to write a contract. It's completly open-ended. If it was not Fred's intent to be that open-ended, then he will have to come up with a lot more detail than made clear to date.

No matter how you choose to "spin" this proposed "deal", i.e., good, bad or indifferent, as it stands we don't know what deal we would really be making.

The "proposal" is being sold by the Company as a means to ensure our job security. But, as it stands, there is nothing in the proposal that provides any job security at all. Yes, we would get growth but don't kid yourself, we will not get job security (at least not from the way this "proposal" currently reads.)

In the current corporate structure Comair, as an entity, has no money of its own with which to buy/lease even one airplane. That has to come from Delta Air Lines. How do we know that Delta will do this and when will we find out? Will it be before we sign or after we sign? Fred has the power to commit Comair but does he have the power to commit Delta? How do we know that? How do we find out if Delta itself is not a party to this "agreement"?

In the proposal, the "freeze" would begin with delivery of the first new aircraft. What happens if delivery stops after the first 5 aircraft? Do we go back to our contract or are we stuck with a permanent freeze plus 30-month seat locks? Who is supposed to absob that risk, the pilots? Isn't that the same as rolling dice with our contract?

Even if we do get the "promised" 35 aircraft, what guarantees that any or all of them will not be transferred to another carrier in the future? Does Fred B. have the power to make such a guarantee when Delta is the owner of the airplanes? I think not. So I ask again, where is the promised job security?

As I have said in earlier posts, I want to consider this proposal but I can't do that objectively in a vacuum. I'm all for "simplicity", but I'm not in favor of becoming a simpleton. I am willing to invest in the job security of Comair pilots. If I do that, I would like to receive job security in return. That's very different from a "promise" of security that cannot be fulfilled by the maker. But, I'm not at all eager to invest in promised growth, with no guarantees, and no real job security; all at a cost that I can't even calculate with the known information.

The "carrot" of the EMB170 is pleasing to the eyes and ears but it is still only a carrot. I believe that Fred genuinely "wants" that airplane and I understand why he can't openly commit to it at this time. Nevertheless, I can't forget my mother's warning --- "if wishes were horses, beggars would ride." This airframe is definitely a "bird in the bush", it is not a "bird in the hand". I'm sure you know the value of birds in the bush vs. a bird in hand.

At this point in time, all we have is a promise from a person that does not have the power to fulfill the positives of that promise, even if he sincerely wants to.

Unless this "promise" can be converted into reality during our talks, in my view, we have only two choices: make ourselves Las Vegas gamblers or reject this proposal. I do not like either of those options. I'm willing to take some risks but I'm not eager to gamble with our contract.

Is that an unreasonable position?
 
Tim47SIP said:
This was Surplus's spin on things.

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

Me Too!:)

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

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

Maybe it is time to start working with the management team as a unified group to get your company moving in the right direction instead of attacking. Give them a chance. You both need each other to survive. Maybe going at this with an open mind will go along way.
 
Tim, Working together is a two way street. Fred's rfp debacle does not start him out as a symbol of trust. He has to get our trust back. We do not make the first move. He's the leader, isn't he?:confused:
 
Nice post Tim,

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

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

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

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

Jet
 
Last edited:
jetflyer said:
Nice post Tim,

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

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

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

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

Jet

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

Kermit has been given the boot. There is hope.
 
I'm just as frustrated with the union's complete lack of communication. Sure, they have made a show of being more open, but its just the same 'ol stuff.

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

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

Educate yourself.

Listening to the VARS isn't enough.
 
"Listening to the VARS isn't enough."

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

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

Latest resources

Back
Top