Kolski makes NPA tuck tale and run!

[j41driver]

Many of your points about activism are valid, but taking a swipe at another organized pilot group is just not acceptable.

Even if he is a member of that organized pilot group?

 

[PCL_128]

I wondered the same thing...perhaps the anonymity provided here has something to do with it.

Probably has something to do with it. I've heard that even Brad's forum has been leaked to management types.

 

[Uppercrust]

Mike Best would make a great MEC Chairman. As it stands now, he's just a figurehead of an impotent union that stands no chance against men like Kolski.

I like Kolski.

 

[Ty Webb]

My guess is that if we had signed that POS that you would be seeing outsourced 85 seat RJ's on the property right now, maybe also some Q400's, and a lot of your fellow pilots on the street.

Sure, I would like to be making an additional $10K this year, but it wouldn't be worth it to see my fellow Trannies on the street.

Anyone that is actually saying otherwise was obviously dropped on their head as a child, and from a great height. . . .


TW

 

[Colonel Savage]

My guess is that if we had signed that POS that you would be seeing outsourced 85 seat RJ's on the property right now, maybe also some Q400's, and a lot of your fellow pilots on the street.

Ty- I thought AAI went through the RJ experiment with AirWis in 2004 and decided that the RJ outsourcing wasn't profitable enough and dropped them.

SWA doesn't use them and makes money in every year and all the airlines that have RJ "partners" lost money big time for years. Fuel prices are making smaller RJ's obsolete.

Why do they want relaxed scope and RJ's?

 

[PCL_128]

50-seaters are obsolete. 70-seaters are break-even. 86+ seaters are still very profitable and give them the added whipsaw advantage. There's a reason that they wanted that 86-seat scope giveaway.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

ALPA has big problems..... but they know how to picket a shareholders meeting...

Called off by an email from management? I'd expect at least a phone call if not a meeting....

wow...

 

[SkiFishFly]

Why didn't we put out in the press about how a group of concerned shareholders (who happen to be employees) were essentially told not to come to a share holder meeting by company management?

Telling shareholders they are not welcome at a shareholder meeting has to be illegal...

 

[Lear70]

I wondered the same thing...perhaps the anonymity provided here has something to do with it.

BINGO!

Ty- I thought AAI went through the RJ experiment with AirWis in 2004 and decided that the RJ outsourcing wasn't profitable enough and dropped them.

They did. They were using 50-seaters which have NEVER made money, except to bring in international high-yield passengers to the hub to connect.

SWA doesn't use them and makes money in every year and all the airlines that have RJ "partners" lost money big time for years. Fuel prices are making smaller RJ's obsolete.

You said it... SMALLER RJ's.

Why do they want relaxed scope and RJ's?

PCL said it. 86-seat CRJ 900's and Q-400's would be a good replacement for the 717 on many, shorter routes, and are MUCH more cost-efficient on leg segments less than 90 minutes.

Bombardier is offering GREAT financing terms for those aircraft, and airTran has made no efforts to hide the fact that they're shopping for a buyer for the 717's.

If they had the new T.A. with relaxed Scope, they could bring up to 20 90-seat CRJ's and UNLIMITED Q-400 turboprops, all farmed out to a subsidiary with non-airTran pilots, then sell large numbers of 717's and not have to pare down or stop using the affiliate RJ's and turboprops.

This was the biggest red flag to me and the main reason why I did the T.A. Rebuttal paper. Top reasons to vote NO.

Scope concessions.
Not binding to airTran holdings.
Pay raises not even equal to COLA.
Pay raises received by raping other seniority groups (new hires and retirees).
Scheduling section nowhere NEAR what we needed, with concessions in reserve language as well.
Give-backs in health care
Give-backs in retirement benefits
No fixes for the hotel issues airTran has.

There were only 2 or 3 decent things in the whole T.A., including a small 401(k) match and, expedited arbitration (which would have helped me right now).

Just wasn't worth all the concessions.

ALPA has big problems..... but they know how to picket a shareholders meeting...

Called off by an email from management? I'd expect at least a phone call if not a meeting....

wow...

Yeah...

Still waiting to hear exactly why it was such a big deal that we took the confidence hit from the membership to cancel it over an email.

Kolski gets excited about a lot of things. Most of it's for show and effect and, unfortunately, it's effective. We need our own pit bull to throw in the ring with him.

 

[Lear70]

Why didn't we put out in the press about how a group of concerned shareholders (who happen to be employees) were essentially told not to come to a share holder meeting by company management?

Telling shareholders they are not welcome at a shareholder meeting has to be illegal...

It is. Kolski didn't tell the NPA they weren't allowed to come, Kolski sent an email saying that, per the FOM, it was illegal to publicly appear in uniform without company authorization.

I don't doubt he threatened discipline proceedings against everyone who showed up in uniform without written authorization from the company per the FOM.

One of the pilots who went to the shareholder's meeting (not in uniform) said the company hired goons to man the doors and make sure no one in uniform got in. Now THAT, if true, would have made for GREAT press.

A pilot jumpseats in for the meeting, in uniform to avoid security issues, goes straight to the meeting, then is refused entrance even though he/she is a shareholder. Would love to have that on the news, "airTran violates SEC provisions for open shareholder meetings by specifically excluding shareholder pilots".

 

[rtmcfi]

It is. Kolski didn't tell the NPA they weren't allowed to come, Kolski sent an email saying that, per the FOM, it was illegal to publicly appear in uniform without company authorization.

quote]

Seems like most of the Airtran Pilots should have uniforms from previous jobs. I can't see any problem with a previous employers uniform.

 

[Fubijaakr]

Ready for a real union yet?

DING, DING, DING!

We have a winner.

 

[Fubijaakr]

What would ALPA do differently PCL?

Watch the video from the lead story at www.alpa.org
. That's what Alaska ALPA did at their shareholders meeting.

 

[Fubijaakr]

Ask all of us TWA'ers what great representation we got from the "real union"

What you meant to say is the "great representation we got from our MEC."

Quite a bit of difference there, chum. It never ceases to amaze me how many pilots tend to blame National for the sins of their local reps.

Tsk. Tsk.

 

[Colonel Savage]

...86+ seaters are still very profitable and give them the added whipsaw advantage. There's a reason that they wanted that 86-seat scope giveaway.

OK, but have a coupla questions:

1) Which makes more money, a full 86 seater or a full 717?

2) I know it's one of your cities, but why did they have the shareholders meeting in CHS?

 

[Lear70]

OK, but have a coupla questions:

1) Which makes more money, a full 86 seater or a full 717?

Depends. There's a LOT more to it than just the number of seats. Yield is determined by a lot of factors; most specifically, for this discussion, stage length.

A 717 running full with 117 people on a 55 minute flight from ATL to MEM is barely break-even these days because of the cost of fuel, the higher burn due to the shortness of the leg, and the competition on that route, also served by Northwest and Delta. Can't get the ticket prices high enough on that segment to make any money, as you're primary objective is to bring people into the hub to turn onto higher-yield routes.

An 86-seat CRJ 900 would be a lot more cost-effective on that route, burning 30% less fuel and carrying only 26% fewer passengers. So, if you have an aircraft that is going to burn 300 gallons less fuel at $2.50 a gallon, that's $750 in savings. If your yield is $10 per passenger on that run, carrying 31 fewer passengers is a loss of $310 in revenue.

The 86 seater will actually make $440 more every time it flies that route (2 legs, 4 non-stops per day, 30 days a month, 12 months a year), $1,267,200 per year in savings on that ROUTE alone.

Now take 2 more routes you save that kind of money on (short leg segments), 4 more flights per day for that aircraft = $3,801,600 per aircraft.

Now take 20 of those aircraft (the max allowed for 90-seat jets under the proposed Scope T.A.) = $76,032,000 yearly savings.

There's a REASON they want Scope relief. I am ALL FOR the company saving that kind of money. I'm not above flying a 90-seat CRJ at a major airline (or a 70-seater, or a 50-seater).

MY issue is that ALL flying under airTran colors is accomplished by airTran pilots. If they can recognize cost savings by selling 1/3 or 1/2 or ALL of the 717's and replacing them with RJ's, then by all means, go for it. But it WILL be airTran pilots flying them at Small Narrow-Body wages of current book plus COLA or better.

2) I know it's one of your cities, but why did they have the shareholders meeting in CHS?

They never have the shareholder's meeting in ATL or MCO. They don't WANT to make it easy for employees to show up in force via picketing or even just a large presence to undermine investor confidence by highlighting labor strife.

Kolski's not a stupid person, by any stretch of the imagination. Remember what Sun Tsu said about your enemey: the moment you lose respect for your opponent is the minute you have lost your battle.

Respect is the father of preparedness.

 

[PCL_128]

I am ALL FOR the company saving that kind of money. I'm not above flying a 90-seat CRJ at a major airline (or a 70-seater, or a 50-seater).

Ditto. The CRJ is a good airplane. I'd have no problem going back to flying one again. But I would still demand SNB payrates for it.

 

[mad691]

DING, DING, DING!

We have a winner.

ALPA's vagina is just as big as the NPA's. The only difference is NPA uses a condom. I'll stick with the NPA. Thank you. They did not do much for Delta, UAL,Usair, CMR,NWA, TWA. All or most have lost there pensions and wages and of course scope is now bigger. Ya, I'll stick with the NPA.

 

[Colonel Savage]

Ditto. The CRJ is a good airplane. I'd have no problem going back to flying one again. But I would still demand SNB payrates for it.

I thought I heard AAI was looking at EMB 190's. Also, if AAI pilots fly whatever replaces the 717 at AAI NB rates, why does the company need scope relief?

 

[gearup5]

I thought I heard AAI was looking at EMB 190's. Also, if AAI pilots fly whatever replaces the 717 at AAI NB rates, why does the company need scope relief?

Because they want the other airplanes and to save even more money they are going to farm it out to Mesa or you fill in the contractor. Our snb rates vs. Mesa crj9 rates or even Jetblues e190 rates. They are not even close. No relief on scope at all. That is the main reason I voted no on the last ta and will vote no again if anything close to that comes out again.

 

[Lear70]

I thought I heard AAI was looking at EMB 190's. Also, if AAI pilots fly whatever replaces the 717 at AAI NB rates, why does the company need scope relief?

OK, I think your posts are starting to border on flame bait... you can't tell me you don't understand this basic idea.

The company doesn't WANT to pay existing SNB rates for RJ's. They don't want our pilots operating them AT ALL.

That's what Scope relief is... letting someone else fly your airplanes.

They want to farm these planes out to a regional, where the labor cost is about 30% cheaper, so they can pocket EVEN MORE in management bonuses at the cost of airTran pilot jobs. No, thanks.

airTran pilots fly planes with airTran colors. The End. Anyone who wants to give away Scope after the angst of the last 20 years at Legacy carriers should have their fu*king head examined...

 

[PCL_128]

Anyone who wants to give away Scope after the angst of the last 20 years at Legacy carriers should have their fu*king head examined...

Exactly! Not one seat.

 

[MINIME]

70 and even 90 seat airplanes don't make much sense anymore with the price of oil. Perhaps on some shorter and secluded markets they may still be useful. But that being said, WHIPSAW is a powerful tool and a very desired one by all airline management. NEVER EVER EVER EVER give up scope. Your livelyhood depends on it. Possibly worse for your career than the price of oil.

Just make sure that your senior, tunnel vision pilots understand that. Normally, all those guys/gals see are dollar signs. Most of them don't undestand or could careless if half of the seniority list behind them gets furloughed or demoted. At all airlines, I believe the junior captains and FOs got to band together to try and stop these trends that always seem to favor the most senior ranks.

 

[SkiFishFly]

70 and even 90 seat airplanes don't make much sense anymore with the price of oil. Perhaps on some shorter and secluded markets they may still be useful. But that being said, WHIPSAW is a powerful tool and a very desired one by all airline management. NEVER EVER EVER EVER give up scope. Your livelyhood depends on it. Possibly worse for your career than the price of oil.

Just make sure that your senior, tunnel vision pilots understand that. Normally, all those guys/gals see are dollar signs. Most of them don't undestand or could careless if half of the seniority list behind them gets furloughed or demoted. At all airlines, I believe the junior captains and FOs got to band together to try and stop these trends that always seem to favor the most senior ranks.

You are 100% correct. I was in the "crew room" in MCO this week and 2 CAs and 1 FO were both lamenting the fact that we had voted down TA2. I tried to hold a discussion about scope and they just basically dismissed my points.
- "oh the company tried RJs and they didn't like it - they are not going to try it again"
- "even if they did get some rjs it would not affect me"
- "you don't know what you are talking about - I've been in this business a lot longer than you have"

I was sick to my stomach after trying (and failing) to get these guys to see the light.

 

[SkiFishFly]

OK, I think your posts are starting to border on flame bait... you can't tell me you don't understand this basic idea.

The company doesn't WANT to pay existing SNB rates for RJ's. They don't want our pilots operating them AT ALL.

That's what Scope relief is... letting someone else fly your airplanes.

They want to farm these planes out to a regional, where the labor cost is about 30% cheaper, so they can pocket EVEN MORE in management bonuses at the cost of airTran pilot jobs. No, thanks.

airTran pilots fly planes with airTran colors. The End. Anyone who wants to give away Scope after the angst of the last 20 years at Legacy carriers should have their fu*king head examined...

And then they want to use the cheaper pilots against us to get more concessions from AirTran pilots. It amazes me that we have pilots who fail to see the issues mentioned in your post and the 2 that follow.

 

[PCL_128]

You are 100% correct. I was in the "crew room" in MCO this week and 2 CAs and 1 FO were both lamenting the fact that we had voted down TA2. I tried to hold a discussion about scope and they just basically dismissed my points.
- "oh the company tried RJs and they didn't like it - they are not going to try it again"
- "even if they did get some rjs it would not affect me"
- "you don't know what you are talking about - I've been in this business a lot longer than you have"

I was sick to my stomach after trying (and failing) to get these guys to see the light.

How 'bout some names? Time for a blanket party.

 

[RIDETHELIGHTING]

Because they want the other airplanes and to save even more money they are going to farm it out to Mesa or you fill in the contractor. Our snb rates vs. Mesa crj9 rates or even Jetblues e190 rates. They are not even close. No relief on scope at all. That is the main reason I voted no on the last ta and will vote no again if anything close to that comes out again.

I'm with you and we could be on TA14 and the answer will still be NO!!!

 

[RIDETHELIGHTING]

You are 100% correct. I was in the "crew room" in MCO this week and 2 CAs and 1 FO were both lamenting the fact that we had voted down TA2. I tried to hold a discussion about scope and they just basically dismissed my points.
- "oh the company tried RJs and they didn't like it - they are not going to try it again"
- "even if they did get some rjs it would not affect me"
- "you don't know what you are talking about - I've been in this business a lot longer than you have"

I was sick to my stomach after trying (and failing) to get these guys to see the light.

I hate to say but a lot of the super senior guys are always saying that we don't need scope, and repeating everything you just said. The stupidity of some the guys is just amazing.

 

[Lear70]

I'm going to have to take a break from these boards for the night, you guys are going to give me a nervous breakdown...

You'd think a group of pilots mostly out of the regionals would understand the pitfalls of Scope concessions... :angryfire:

 

[PCL_128]

I'm going to have to take a break from these boards for the night, you guys are going to give me a nervous breakdown...

You'd think a group of pilots mostly out of the regionals would understand the pitfalls of Scope concessions... :angryfire:

If it's any consolation, I haven't heard a whole lot of guys saying this. But, I don't fly very much, so maybe I'm just missing it.