Flops pay vs. the economy excuse

[993_Pilot]

Look at some of FLOPS aircraft pricing. It is almost 30% lower then the others for the same class of aircraft.
That is why they want the pilots pay to be 30%lower as well.

If Flops management this kind of cost advantage over their competition to be competitive, then I have no faith in the management team and no long term hope for the company... and I don't see why anyone would!!!

Have they not realized that you need happy motivated employees to grow your company? They surly won't get it with this TA.

Obviously not.

 

[ProFracPilot]

Spp

I look at the SPP much the same way as I view the "FlyRight" program. You do your job and fly the profiles as published but you don't really have any control on the outcome every quarter. I think it will be the same with the SPP. Do the right thing, fly the trips (if you can) and hope flying increases yearly, quarter over quarter. The formula is just the mechanism to calculate the numbers.

A buddy of mine who sat in on drums and recorded a couple albums back in the 70's with a famous guitarist calls the small royalty checks he gets every once in a while "mailbox money". I think it fits here.

 

[SilverSurfer]

I look at the SPP much the same way as I view the "FlyRight" program. You do your job and fly the profiles as published but you don't really have any control on the outcome every quarter. I think it will be the same with the SPP. Do the right thing, fly the trips (if you can) and hope flying increases yearly, quarter over quarter. The formula is just the mechanism to calculate the numbers.

A buddy of mine who sat in on drums and recorded a couple albums back in the 70's with a famous guitarist calls the small royalty checks he gets every once in a while "mailbox money". I think it fits here.

The problem with your thinking is that the FlyRight program was unilaterally created, put into play, and managed without any say by us. We are not privy to any of the numbers that go into calculating "boneus" we ger and who gets it.

This is a contract, that do not fool yourself, is a 5 year contract that will govern how we are paid. I don't know about you but I do not want to leave how I'm paid left up to someone else and not even understand what I should have coming to me as with the flyright program. There is not even anything in the contract that states that when the calculation is done using this formula, and some verification of the numbers used in it is done, it will be mad available to the pilots. This is very similar to profit sharing and companies that have a profit sharing program release the information on which the profit is measured.

Trust but verify

 

[ProFracPilot]

Trust but verify

I agree. And I didn't do a good job of making my point.

The SPP is so convoluted that I don't think it can be realistically used in the compensation part of the decision making process. If this thing passes, initially I will consider any income as a result of SPP to be gravy. Is this a deal breaker for me? Possibly, as even if this thing pays out our compensation won't be "industry standard". But overall I'm still undetermined on the TA. Compensation is just one part of it. Contractually mandated work rules and protections are hugely important to me (especially since we've had NONE up to this point). As a first contract, how does this one compare to others who have trod before us? (this answer might be hard to determine, since our situation is so unique). Remember, NJ's contract in 2005 was an amended contract, not their first. As we compare the two we shouldn't lose sight of this fact.

Much more research to do...

 

[993_Pilot]

I keep hearing that Pay isn't the only issue at stake here, and that's true. Don't get me wrong, having rules is definitely better than not, and a lot of the rules are good, especially for a first contract. However, some of the rules written in to the contract are merely place holders for a future contract. Others are obviously here because management just negotiated better, and the IBT probably had to give them up in order to get our whopping 10% pay raise.

There are many more, but here are a few examples that come to mind:

Sect. 1 - Scope: The crewing ratio = 4 pilots for every 800 hours under management. This doesn't help the pilots in any way that I can tell. Even if you assume that all the aircraft in the fleet are 100% sold and zero charter flying, it's only 4 pilots per aircraft. That isn't even enough to cover normal flying, training, sick time, and vacations. I don't want to force management to carry more crews than what is reasonable, but it sure would be nice for someone other than the most senior pilot to be able to get vacation during the holidays/peak travel.

Sect 24 - Insurance Benefits - No change! In the last few years, they took away the "A" plan and tripled the cost of the others.

Sect. 27 - NRFO Pilot = $1000/mo. The choice of who gets it is up to the chief pilot, ... really? How many of us has he actually flown with? Other than his title, what makes him qualified to make this decision? What will end up happening, is that he'll end up asking the opinion of the PSMs. They are mostly out of touch with most pilots abilities too, so take a guess how they'll make their decision? ... It sounds like the SFO program dressed up and given a different name to me. I have no problem with having the NRFO Pilot clause, but the deciding needs to be objectively defined. If an average line captain can't handle it, and it requires special training then perhaps that should be addressed too.

Sect 28.4(e) - Voluntarily Exceeding Flight and/or Duty Time Limitations ... Really ??? The title says it all, and they shouldn't even be able to ask. This is just a license for management to talk about your "reasonably scheduled" day, and ask if you'll do them a favor and help them out. If you regularly do it, they'll identify you as a good 'ol boy and a good candidate for the SFO, oops, I mean "NRFO Pilot" position. If you don't, they'll try to guilt or pressure you into it. This shouldn't even be in the contract.

Sect. 28.? - We're missing any Circadian Low Agreement. We had a pretty good one in the ops. manual years ago, then they found it limiting, and it changed. Shall we just trust management to do the right thing in the future? This may not be a huge one, bit I say write it down and put it in the contract... even if it is the same crappy limitations we have now.

Sect 29 - 401k matching. Matching percentages are OK, but they don't have to give it to us until they give it to all the company employees. So I guess management can get matching, but until they give it to everyone, including the janitor, they don't have to give it to us! This was something that management recently took away, to make the union give up something else in order to get it back.

Sect 30 - Duration.
As a general rule in a bad economy and/or in first contracts, you negotiate for good work rules. Generally they did OK here, with a few exceptions, a few of which are noted above, although I'm sure there are a few more to add.

General rule #2 - If the resulting pay is crappy, you go for a short duration. Here is where this TA really falls short, and I have a serious disconnect. In fact, this is the straw that breaks the camels back. I might be able to swallow the crappy Pay/401k/Insurance sections, just to have the work rules in writing, if we were voting on a 2 year contract. The problem for me is that this is a 3 year contract with an option for 4th & 5th year extensions at management's sole discretion, without any say by the pilots. There is no way they won't renew the option at these bargain basement rates. Then, management doesn't have to even come to the table for the next negotiations until 6 months prior to the end of the contract period. The next one may go faster, but it probably won't get settled in 6 months, so we would probably have to live with this contract for the next 6+ years. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm just not ready to accept that.

My message to the e-board is:
If you want me to vote for work rules alone, then shorten the duration. If you want to keep a longer duration, then get us better pay ! I won't vote yes on this as it stands now.

 

[FLSTCI]

993, glad you took the time to read the contract and dissect some of the areas of concern. You make some cogent points and I think that the pilot group as a whole has very real concerns about what is and what is not contained in this TA. Choose wisely!

 

[fly4funcrj]

Flops = MESA?

 

[steelersrule74]

I don't have a dog in this fight so i've held back from commenting on the specifics of the TA. That is clearly a personal decision for each FLOPS pilot to make on their own. I will comment though regarding duration that in my opinion previous posts are accurate. If your management team can option this out to 5 years, it is entirely possible you will be working under this agreement for several years beyond. If an agreement that gives your company a significant advantage over labor costs is adopted - I'm not sure how motivated they would be to revisit the issue in a timely manner.

 

[jetwash]

If there is "No" vote and it goes back and then the only thing changed in the TA is the duration from 5 to 3 years as most pilots want.

We would probably lose another year negotiating it but it could get us back to the table a year earlier than if we accept this TA with the 5 year duration.

Extend the negotiation at this end another year to cut the duration 2 years.

Something to think about.

 

[993_Pilot]

If there is "No" vote and it goes back and then the only thing changed in the TA is the duration from 5 to 3 years as most pilots want.

We would probably lose another year negotiating it but it could get us back to the table a year earlier than if we accept this TA with the 5 year duration.

Extend the negotiation at this end another year to cut the duration 2 years.

Something to think about.

We don't even necessarily have to extend anything on this end. Make no mistake, both management and the union watch these boards every day. If enough people speak up and voice their concerns over duration, and they realize that shortening it is the key to making it pass, they could amend the TA before it gets voted on... then we'd be back to the table 2-3 years earlier! That might actually be worth a yes vote.