Frontier reaches TA with pilots

[ualdriver]

i'm not even close to taking the time to post all the new rates from the TA...but here's a snapshot...let's take proposed 10 year captain pay and 5 year FO pay.
Captains (10 Year)

Frontier 146.37
Airtran 144.00
United 128.00
Jetblue 138.00
Alaska 148.00
SWA 194.00

First Officers (5 year)

Frontier 82.00
Airtran 72.00
United 78.00
Jetblue 72.00
Alaska 86.00
SWA 119.00

You tell me whose rates are 'dragging' down the industry.

I totally agree the the language with RJ's and turboprops needs alot of work..I see no reason to give away that many Rj's right out of the gate. But the rates anyways, aren't out of line.

(these numbers are from airline pilot central, and include only rates for A320 series or 737 series aircraft from the various companies)

The problem is that those hourly rates don't tell the whole story, with the big "story" being that if you get a 401K match or a DC contribution, those hourly rates can change significantly. I'm going to use your hourly rates as they are, then adjust them for the DC contributions/401K match contributions those same airline make using airlinepilotcentral.com as a reference. For example, UAL currently has a 15% DC contribution (soon to be 16%) which changes the picture. Airtran seems to have a big DC contribution as well.

Further if you get a tax free DC contribution match or a 401K match, you just can't take that "15%" for example and add it to your hourly rate because the match is TAX FREE and the hourly rate isn't. It's actually much more valuable than the straight 15% because you're not paying tax on that figure. Shield your eyes now if you don't like math: you have to take that tax free DC contribution and figure out it's pre-tax worth by using the following formula:

[DC contribution x (1/(1-tax bracket))].

I'll assume we're all in about the 25% tax bracket (rough estimate) and adjust Frontier's rate by 2% DC (per their TA), Airtran by 10.5%, United by 15%, JetBlue by 3%, Alaska by 3%, Southwest by 7.3% using the formula above. Example calculation using United Captain rates and the 15% DC contribution and the tax free DC implications =

128 x [ 1 + (.15 x ( 1/1-.25))] = 153.59998

Captain (10 year)
Frontier 146.37 + 2% adjustment = $150.32 (TA rate)
Airtran 144.00 + 10.5% adjstment = $164.16
United 128.00 + 15% adjustment = $153.60
JetBlue 138 + 3% adjustment = $143.38
Alaska 148.00+ 3.0% adjustment = $153.77
SWA 194.00 + 7.3% adjustment = $212.41

First Officer (5 year)
Frontier 82.00 + 2% adjustment = $84.21 (TA rate)
Airtran 72.00 + 10.5% adjustment = $82.08
United 78.00 + 15% adjustment = $93.60
JetBlue 72.00 + 3% adjustment = $74.81
Alask 86.00 + 3% adjustment = $89.35
SWA 119.00+ 7.3% adjustment = $130.29

Those hourly numbers are MUCH more accurate if you want to make comparisons. Further, if you figure the JetBlue guy is going to work around 80 hours every month, you have to add about 10% to his average hourly rate in order to take the time and a half into consideration above 70 hours. So the above JetBlue rates are artifically low and should be around $157 for the Captain and $83 for the F/O.

 

[climb2slow]

okay, so we also have a DC..or probably will...we also make 125% for time over 82 hours, and I routinely fly 85-90 plus hour lines. Basically this is all showing what we all know but seem to forget. It's the whole package that determines whether a contract is successful or not. Pilots get too hung up on whose rates are better or not, but no one takes into account things like per diem, Dc, etc. I appreciate you taking the time to post and help make that point.

 

[Aviator7576]

tax free

ualdriver...

I only wish that the dc contributions were "tax free." Instead they are "tax deferred" meaning you will have to pay taxes on them in the future. I think the only way to compare the different compensations is not necessarily with hourly rates but with hourly rates times guarantee. Come up with that list and it will be more meaningful to compare.

JMO

Aviator7576

 

[ualdriver]

ualdriver...

I only wish that the dc contributions were "tax free." Instead they are "tax deferred" meaning you will have to pay taxes on them in the future. I think the only way to compare the different compensations is not necessarily with hourly rates but with hourly rates times guarantee. Come up with that list and it will be more meaningful to compare.

JMO

Aviator7576

Yeah, tax deferred is a more accurate term. Replace "tax free" with "tax deferred" as you desire. The numbers remain the same

When I look at rates, I personally don't look at "guarantee" because I don't think I've ever been able to fly only "guarantee" at any point in my career, although I wish I could. Plus, if one airline had an artifically low "guarantee" but a high hourly rate, the product of the high hourly rate and the low guarantee could be misleading.

 

[F9 Driver]

10 year Captain DC is 5.5% at DOS up to 6% in one year.

5 year FO DC is 3.2% at DOS going to 4% in two years.

401K match is 5% of total comp.

 

[regionaltard]

Alaska - rates effected by government mediator

Not true. Kasher was a supposedly neutral arbitrator. Mediation is a whole 'nuther thing.

 

[Aviator7576]

ualdriver...

You should know (as a former P3 guy!), that the key is to get paid for a high guarantee without ever leaving the comfort of your home. In a perfect world, that is my goal...to work as little as possible and take home the megabucks. Just like the navy, however, my company seems to take exception to this concept of pay for little or no work. So it's a constant battle which I end up winning most of the time I think.

YMMV

Aviator7576

VP44/VP1 (back when Russia was the bad guy!)

 

[ualdriver]

ualdriver...

You should know (as a former P3 guy!), that the key is to get paid for a high guarantee without ever leaving the comfort of your home. In a perfect world, that is my goal...to work as little as possible and take home the megabucks. Just like the navy, however, my company seems to take exception to this concept of pay for little or no work. So it's a constant battle which I end up winning most of the time I think.

YMMV

Aviator7576

VP44/VP1 (back when Russia was the bad guy!)

Never flew the P3. Flew the Electra for Zantop!

 

[OpenClimb]

You guys wanted specifics...

Here are a few details of the TA with regard to Scope. My intent is to provide factual information with regard to what’s in the TA along with my opinion on the matter to help promote a discussion which will either (a) enlighten me to the point where I’m persuaded to change my opinion; or (b) give others something to think about as they cast a vote for or against the TA. This isn’t personal, it’s business. No name-calling, please. I’m fragile!

Section 1, Paragraph 3 discusses Scope.

As others have said, the TA allows unlimited turboprops up to 78 seats and 1 small jet for every 2 Airbus on the property at the time the TA is ratified. (This is paragraph A.3.b.)

For purposes of this discussion, let’s say we have 56 Airbus at the time the TA is ratified. Simple math says the Company could bring in 28 small jets. With me so far…?

Paragraph A.3.c. tries to protect the jobs of mainline pilots. Specifically, it says,

“Subject to Paragraph 3.b. above, once the limitations above are met [my emphasis], the Company fleet shall not be reduced without a prior and equal reduction of the SJ fleet, with the following limitations:”

The “limitations” word at the end of the last quote really should be “exceptions”—situations where the Company doesn’t have to maintain the jobs of mainline pilots. These exceptions are (and I’m quoting verbatim):

(1) “The requirement to reduce the SJ fleet shall not apply if the Company or Holdings cannot do so without incurring significant adverse cost or financial liability to itself”; and

(2) “The SJ fleet shall not be required to be reduced below the Base SJ Limit.”

My conclusions/fears:

(1) the Company could reduce the fleet size of mainline all it wants until they reach the 28 small jets limit. What would keep them from bringing 26 small jets online and reducing the number of Airbus to 15? (Remember, the job protections don’t kick in until “once the limitations above are met”}

(2) if we wind up with more airplanes than we need, the Company could park Airbusses (what is the plural of Airbus, anyway?) and be under no obligation to park small jets. They don’t have to reduce the small jet population below 28 airplanes (exception #2) AND they don’t have to reduce the small jet population if it would create “significant adverse cost or financial liability” (exception #1).

I have plenty of other reasons to vote no on this TA, but they’re all trivial compared to the lack of job protections provided by this scope section.

 

[ualdriver]

Limitation #1 would scare me a lot. Very easy to prove to a judge or arbitrator.

 

[F9 Driver]

Open Climb wrote:
"My conclusions/fears:

(1) the Company could reduce the fleet size of mainline all it wants until they reach the 28 small jets limit. What would keep them from bringing 26 small jets online and reducing the number of Airbus to 15? (Remember, the job protections don’t kick in until “once the limitations above are met”}

(2) if we wind up with more airplanes than we need, the Company could park Airbusses (what is the plural of Airbus, anyway?) and be under no obligation to park small jets. They don’t have to reduce the small jet population below 28 airplanes (exception #2) AND they don’t have to reduce the small jet population if it would create “significant adverse cost or financial liability” (exception #1)."

My conclusions:

(1) I guess I'd have to wonder why they would want to. I mean how f'd up would things have to be if we had gotten rid of 40+ airbusses and replaced them with a bunch of small jets? Do you actually see them doing this or are you just looking to poke holes and play "what if?" Lots of things "could happen."
(2) See above. If things are that bad there will be a whole new band of morons in charge if the asylum on Tower, and I'll be doing something else.

 

[OpenClimb]

My conclusions:

(1) I guess I'd have to wonder why they would want to. I mean how f'd up would things have to be if we had gotten rid of 40+ airbusses and replaced them with a bunch of small jets? Do you actually see them doing this or are you just looking to poke holes and play "what if?" Lots of things "could happen."
(2) See above. If things are that bad there will be a whole new band of morons in charge if the asylum on Tower, and I'll be doing something else.

I picked the reduction to 15 Airbus as an example. They wouldn't have to get rid of 40+ Airbusses to get my attention or raise my level of concern. I would think we would want a provision saying that NO AIRBUSSES would be parked or no-one would be furloughed so long as small jet flying is in progress. Of course this is probably asking for too much, but I would think the current provision allowing ALL Airbusses to be parked is also asking for too much.

Lots of things COULD happen with a bunch of loopholes in the contract. If the pilot group is comfortable with this, then so be it. I just think it's important to make an informed decision.

As to your point #2, RE: things that bad... What's bad or good depends entirely on whether you want to be a new hire small jet pilot or if you want to preserve a job as a Airbus pilot.

RE: the suggestion that I'm just trying to poke holes in things--don't you think the Company will do exactly this? If they're not going to take advantage of every loophole in the contract, then let's close the loophole. If they object to closing the loophole, then that ought to be a clue as to their future plans. The continued well-being of the Frontier [Airlines] pilot group depends on considering the full extent of the exceptions, exemptions, limitations, etc. of the contract.

If the Company isn't going to park Airbusses in favor of additional small jets, then let's firm that up as a requirement in the contract instead of allowing a bunch of exceptions.

 

[yaks]

Will the DC be a cash deposit into an account invested in a diversified portfolio and managed by an independent broker, or a bunch of company stock thrown into a Frontier "managed" account for which the pilots will be charged exorbitant management fees? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[F9 Driver]

Fidelity account with a selection of funds like our 401K.

No Frontier stock (unless its owned by a fund.)

 

[F9 A319]

"It won't be good for ANY negotiations at EVERY airline."

and

"1.5% is HALF of what you need for a COLA. This thing will continue to devalue and degrade the profession. Vote No."

Whether I vote yes or no for the TA, my responsibility to the "industry" or my "fellow pilots" at other carriers will not be a consideration. My job is not to drive rates up, fix work rules at any other carrier or, quite frankly, worry about another carrier's profit/loss or how happy/unhappy their pilot group is.

I made a decision long ago not to base my happiness or lifestyle on what others made. Lots of people make more in total compensation - I don't care.

For those who feel each contract is an opportunity to increase rates, retirement, etc., for everyone else look how well it worked pre 9/11. It was going to change regardless. For those that feel it is every pilot's responsibility to take care of the industry, look what happened at Frontier 1's pilots and UAL or TWA and AA, the list is a long one.

Everybody's in this together until they need to step over your still warm body to get to their seat.

also

"The original F9 guys will be shaking their heads wondering "WTF happened? This used to be a halfway decent job." FAPA will negotiate J4J at the new alter ego, "Rabbit", and the Bus drivers will be making $45K a year in the left seat of an E-199 1/2 that seats 139 pax."

Ya know we started at 50k / year and it was a way decent job. The odds were against us then just like the odds are for us being acquired now. I don't care. All of this will happen or not happen whether I scream and yell, bang my head on a wall, fly fast or slow or peacefully plan to make the best of whatever happens to come my way.

It's all good.

Good luck storming the castle, don't wear yourselves out...

 

[Shrek]

WOW.............sound pretty defeated bud.........

While you clean up your spilled milk let the rest of the pilot group pick up your slack and try to negotiate a better deal. Don't worry you will reap all their hard work.

 

[F9 A319]

It's not defeat, it is victory.

When I was young I thought acceptance was identical to defeat, turns out it is the answer.

Airline management has a long history of doing what they do, pilots do too. That's OK as long as you realize that it all started before you or me and will continue until they can figure out a way to get pilots out of the cockpit, long after you and I are gone.

Some folks get excited, hell I got excited years ago, but nothing really changes.

There needs to be people willing to "rescue" the profession, sadly it is more than likely too late. I wish I could have been a Captain in the 50s, 60s and 70s. It seems unlikely now, but it doesn't defeat me - I accept it and the great years I got.

I think there are more important things in the world than 2-5 dollars an hour or 10-50 cents for per diem. Retirement would be nice but look at the poor ba$tards that had it stolen from them after they retired. $hit happens, it can be a drag or an opportunity to learn something new and /or be something new.

I've done my part, please go pick up my slack and let me reap the benefits of your hard work - and Thank you.

 

[Shrek]

Don't get me wrong - I understand you points and they do have thought behind them. My point is that it seemed like you were laying down to management not working with them. Believe me when I say I have lived the other way around and it is a bad place to be. Being at each other's throats for years on end and everybody loses in the end.

BUT and a big but.......being greedy during contract talks and having realistic future goals are not the same thing. And I admit - I am on the outside in this but it seems that with all the hard work to grow the airline to where it is today is worth something in my book. Does it mean - 300/hr and a 80 hr guarantee?!! nope.

But it also doesn't mean a below average first year pay rate and a pay freeze for a "Cost Neutral" contract.

In the end it will ripple through other properties but I really do wish F9 crews the very best in whatever you decide. And if you decide to vote this TA in - don't rip yourselves apart from the infighting that might result. Own it and move on.

I have a personal stake in their future as well.......not me but close friends and I wish them and you the best...........be safe.

 

[StaySeated]

I spent some time stuck in various places over the weekend thanks to old-woman-winter and reviewed the TA.

In my opinion, it is good. Not great, but definitely not bad. We can go on and on about scope, bottom line is, we could have the best scope language ever written and it would not be worth d1ck. Scope is worthless, by the time the blue book contract is printed the company has already figured out a way to beat the language. Scope has NEVER worked, and I have said a million times that the entire section should just be removed from every contract.

I evaluated compensation and here are my raises for the next five years as an FO. Once they started lynx, my aspirations of upgrading died and my logbook updating began.

14%, 5.6%, 6.8%,7.8% and 2%.

When I include the DC plan the numbers become

16.6%, 9.3%, 9.5%, 11.8% and 7.5%

I think we have outpaced inflation.

The scheduling section is truly as good as it gets. In terms of flexibility you just can't beat our options. Hold your breath if they cram pref bid next year, but for the time being Section 5 is pretty much unbeatable in the industry.

Insurance still sucks, and it looks like we no longer have loss of license coverage.

I still have some questions that will be brought up at the next roadshow, but the TA is "good". (except for the hats )

 

[embdrvr]

I guess when they start parking your Airbuses you can go get the $50/hour captain job at Lynx. If it has a picture of animal on the tale it should be flown by a Frontier pilot. Those Q-400's will be replacing some of your shorter legs. And the RJ's will be taking away some of the medium length legs.
You'll be left with the longer legs that can't be flown with an RJ (yet).
Take a look at what happened to the rest of the industry.
You're next on the chopping block if you go along with it.
Why not aspire to be like SWA? They manage just fine without RJ feed and they offer their pilots a decent living. Even JetBlue pilots managed to keep the RJ flying in house. There's no reason you guys can't do the same. It's not like JetBlue doesn't face a lot of competition

 

[StaySeated]

Lynx already exists. There is nothing in our contract or the TA that is going to change that reality. I totally agree that Holding's should have been contractually bound by our current contract, but that is precisely my point. When the current contract was negotiated no one thought Frontier Airlines could possibly develop a holding company. They are a publicly held company and the change would require a shareholder vote. Fast forward a few years and the Holding company exists and several people at the GO still go to bed at night giggling themselves to sleep because of it. I personally believe that Frontier Holdings already has an order for EMB 170's and 175's. Once this TA is ratified, either the first time or after a no vote, an announcement will follow and they will rapidly take deliveries of the E-jets.

The SJ language and the E-jet weights are in the contract for a reason, because it is going to happen.

 

[OpenClimb]

Lynx already exists. There is nothing in our contract or the TA that is going to change that reality.

Au contraire, mon frere (who knows on the spelling, I have enough difficulties with English).

We are in Section 6 negotiations pursuant to the Railway Labor Act. One of the provisions of the Railway Labor Act is known as "Status Quo."

The short explanation of this provision is that the Pilot Group _and/or_ the Company can't do anything it didn't do before negotiations began. Pilots can't taxi slow. The Company can't change all our hotels to Motel 6. The Company can't change or do anything that smacks of coercion--threatening us into ratifying a new contract.

Here's what the IPA (union for UPS pilots) has to say about Status Quo:

"When do collective bargaining agreements expire under the RLA?
Under the RLA, agreements do not have expiration dates; instead they have amendable dates which are indicated within the agreement. IPA’s contract became amendable December 31, 2003. Until a mutually negotiated change is accepted by both parties to the agreement, the provisions of the original agreement remain in full force. This is commonly referred to as "status quo." Both the union and the company have a legal obligation to maintain the status quo until the process of the RLA has been fully exhausted."

Saying that the Collective Bargaining Agreement doesn't apply to Holdings is complete legal folly. If this were the case, why has the Company honored the Contract for the past 14 months? If changing the name of a legal entity allowed the legal entity to disavow its contractual obligations, then what good are contracts at all? Heck, I should just change my middle initial so I don't have to pay my mortgage!

OUR EXISTING SCOPE LANGUAGE: (Section 1.E.1.)

"Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, all flying on the Company's aircraft (whether leased to or owned by the Company) in its' [sic] scheduled airline service or under the Company's operational control, including wet leases (aircraft and crew) and contracting for other carriers entities (government, military or commercial), but not dry leases (aircraft but no crew) to other carriers or entities, shall be performed by Pilots on the Frontier Airlines Pilot Seniority List."

OUR EXISTING SUCCESSORSHIP LANGUAGE: (Section 1.E.5.)

"The Company shall not create or acquire an "alter ego" for the purpose of transferring the assets of the Company to such airline or entity and/or to avoid the terms and conditions of this Agreement."

See also... (Section 1.G.)

"This Agreement shall be binding upon any successor or assign of the Company unless and until changed in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. For the purposes of this Paragraph, a successor or assign shall be defined as an entity (other than an air carrier or an entity which owns, is owned, or is controlled by an air carrier) which acquires all or substantially all of the assets or equity of the Company through a single transaction or multi-step related transactions."

So...

Not only do we have existing contract language which says we've got SCOPE, we also have existing language that says the contract applies to SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST (the new Holdings Company).

On top of all this, we have the even more restrictive Status Quo provisions of the Railway Labor Act.

We are only negotiating from a position of weakness if we CHOOSE to ignore the protections we already have! I can't say this strongly enough. Don't vote Yes on this contract just because you think we're on the ropes and this is the best we can do.

 

[Hawker dude]

As usual, Slowcur doesn't have even the most basic understanding of RLA negotiations. Go back to your cubicle.

OK. Mr. ALPO. what the hel@ has ALPO ever done for pilots? hah. screw them over. Dwayne Worthless padded his pockets with our money.

ALPA used to be a machine. Pilots stuck together like brothers... now... too many pus$ies involved.

so my point is what's your's.

 

[StaySeated]

open climb...check. Sorry, just can't seem to say/type one without the other anymore.

I understand status quo and totally 100% agree with your post. I also disagree with the rational offered up on our board about how one list is too expensive blah blah blah.

With that being said, I do not see how voting no on the TA is going to right the wrong known as lynx. Are you saying that the ta should include language requiring lynx to disappear and all flying should be on our list? I would love that to happen, but I would also like $100 bucks for the right seat and $200 for the left and a defined benefit plan. I just don't see any of those things happening here.

It will all be moot when we merge with spirit anyway.

 

[OpenClimb]

Hello Stay Seated,

No, I don't think we should attempt to block Lynx from happening altogether. If we're paying another company to perform these services, then it would make sense to assume the outside Company would be making money on the deal. If, instead, we can create our own company to do the flying and therefore capture the profits from said operation, then it would make good business sense to do so.

The point to my post is that we need to restrain the growth of the "Express" (for lack of a better term) fleet so as to preserve the jobs of mainline pilots. We don't want the tail wagging the dog as has happened at Delta and to some extent at most all the Legacy carriers.

My point (I can have 2 points, can't I) is that unlike some of the carriers who are currently in bankruptcy or have recently emerged from bankruptcy, we are in a position of power to secure a strong scope clause in our next contract. Contrary to popular Flightinfo banter, scope clauses can work so long as your carrier isn't in bankruptcy.

What we have in the TA is frankly _pathetic_ with regard to scope. See a couple of posts above for the details and my justification for this conclusion. [Post #129, specifically]

Since we don't have line-item veto power on the TA, the only way we can prevent the pathetic scope language from becoming the law of the land is to vote No. If the TA fails, we'll continue under our current (much stonger) scope language as part of Status Quo. The Union will do another survey which would presumably show scope as a strong concern of the pilot group. Management will be sufficiently motivated to reach an agreement because they're planning to be operating Lynx by mid-summer--tough to do under Status Quo.

I'm trying to be rational with this analysis. I just don't see a need to accept less than we have right now. I'm always open to enlightenment!

 

[OpenClimb]

It has come to my attention that some of our pilot group believes that voting no on this contract means that we are going to strike. I heard one strong proponent of the TA recently asked what's so bad with the TA that we'd be ready to strike over it.

Nothing could be further from reality. If this contract fails, the terms of our existing contract remain in full force and effect. There was even a Chief Pilot's memo that recently stated this. If the vote on the TA fails, we continue operations under Status Quo.

The other thing to keep in mind is that we do not have an arbitration provision in our contract. In other words, unless the company files for banruptcy protection we won't have a contract imposed upon us.

I can't remember the exact details, but I seem to remember that FAPA put out a pretty good summary of the Railway Labor Act negotiations flowchart. This would be a good reference for members as you consider your voting options.

A yes or no vote is simply a choice between what we currently have and what has been proposed in the TA. That's it--nothing more, nothing less.

 

[StaySeated]

I got the same impression after speaking with a few people. They think we are going to be stuck with arbitration like Alaska if we don't vote this in asap. We haven't even filed for mediation yet! I have flow with a few different points of view recently, empathy or "yes" voters seem to outnumber the "no's". Unfortunately.

 

[OpenClimb]

Mediation is not the same as arbitration.

In mediation a neutral 3rd party (the mediator) helps the parties resolve their differences by encouraging discussion.

Arbitration is where the parties hire what is essentially a private judge (the arbitrator). The parties to the dispute present their cases to the arbitrator who then makes a ruling--much the same way a judge would make a ruling in the traditional legal system. The parties can agree ahead of time whether they will be 'bound' by the arbitrator's decision. You may have heard of the terms "binding" or "non-binding" arbitration.

In our case, we may be asked to participate in a _mediation_ process which is typically facilitated by the National Mediation Board. It's still just mediation--NOT ARBITRATION.

We have no obligation to participate in Arbitration. The only way we will have a contract imposed upon up is if the Company files for bankruptcy protection and a federal bankruptcy judge decides our contract is out of line.

Them's the FACTs.

 

[F9 Driver]

Facts?

It has come to my attention that some of our pilot group believes that voting no on this contract means that we are going to strike. I heard one strong proponent of the TA recently asked what's so bad with the TA that we'd be ready to strike over it.

Nothing could be further from reality. If this contract fails, the terms of our existing contract remain in full force and effect. There was even a Chief Pilot's memo that recently stated this. If the vote on the TA fails, we continue operations under Status Quo.

The other thing to keep in mind is that we do not have an arbitration provision in our contract. In other words, unless the company files for banruptcy protection we won't have a contract imposed upon us.

I can't remember the exact details, but I seem to remember that FAPA put out a pretty good summary of the Railway Labor Act negotiations flowchart. This would be a good reference for members as you consider your voting options.

A yes or no vote is simply a choice between what we currently have and what has been proposed in the TA. That's it--nothing more, nothing less.Mediation is not the same as arbitration.

In mediation a neutral 3rd party (the mediator) helps the parties resolve their differences by encouraging discussion.

Arbitration is where the parties hire what is essentially a private judge (the arbitrator). The parties to the dispute present their cases to the arbitrator who then makes a ruling--much the same way a judge would make a ruling in the traditional legal system. The parties can agree ahead of time whether they will be 'bound' by the arbitrator's decision. You may have heard of the terms "binding" or "non-binding" arbitration.

In our case, we may be asked to participate in a _mediation_ process which is typically facilitated by the National Mediation Board. It's still just mediation--NOT ARBITRATION.

We have no obligation to participate in Arbitration. The only way we will have a contract imposed upon up is if the Company files for bankruptcy protection and a federal bankruptcy judge decides our contract is out of line.

Them's the FACTs.

Fact: Status quo only goes until the end of the cooling off period. There is an “end game” to negotiations.

They don’t go on forever. The negotiators for FAPA say the negotiations have gone about as far as they are going to go without mediation at Frontier. If we enter mediation there are only two outcomes – agreement or release (which the company would probably ask for immediately after filing for mediation.)

After release - we can withhold our services (strike), the company can lock us out and hire scab labor, or they can IMPOSE CONTRACT TERMS on us if we wish to continue working for the company.

Fact: If we vote the TA down we have to TRY and block the operation of Lynx without certain outcome, and possibly negate the entire scope argument if we lose.

There are some seriously anti-labor judges who have been seated over the past six years, and the only thing worse than having a scope clause you don’t like is having NO scope protection if we lost that argument. (not to mention the damage done during the fight.)

Sorry to take away your perceived leverage, but without the will/ability to strike I don’t see the upside to a no vote on a contract that gives the pilots a net gain and closes huge loopholes in our current successorship language.

 

[OpenClimb]

Yes, I will agree that the Company could impose it's last best offer. Given that the END game is that they could fire us all and continue on running the airline with scabs, it would also make sense that they could impose their terms, too.

If anybody's interested in reading about this straight from the National Mediation Board, they have a set of FAQ's available here.

For various reasons personal and professional, this will be my last post on this matter. Good luck to all of us in keeping our jobs and preserving a quality of life that makes this a job worth having. Please don't fall for scare tactics.

OpenClimb (now @ THRST IDL==>>I give up. You guys win.)