New AirTran TA Thread

[RIDETHELIGHTING]

Hey Lear you need to post the section under a different thread so they stand out.
agian, thanks for everything!

 

[Citrusflyer]

They're ALL mid to senior CA's who don't have to live under *most* of the concessionary parts.

As one in that category I don't know of one of my peers who is in favor of this thing. I could be way off here, but there is more support from us (against the TA) than you may think......

 

[j41driver]

Section 1 – Purpose of Agreement

-Still does not bind the Holding Company except by two side letters, neither of which specifically require the AirTran Holdings to specifically honor the Agreement, but only say “Holdings will not allow Airways to breach the Scope provisions of THEIR Agreement”. Doesn’t say ANYWHERE that Holdings will be bound to the Scope provisions. Worthless letter.

Here's page 1 of ACA's contract. It defined the "Atlantic Coast Airlines Holdings, Inc (ACAI)" as the "Company" but operated Atlantic Coast Airlines as a subsidiary of that holding company. Seems like this would have been the way to go since it binds the entire document to the holding company. Was this avenue even explored? If not, why?



AGREEMENT

​

between​

​

ATLANTIC COAST AIRLINES HOLDINGS, INC. (ACAI)​

​

and the​

​

Air Line Pilots​

​

in the service of​

​

ATLANTIC COAST AIRLINES HOLDINGS, INC. (ACAI)​

​

as represented by​

​

THE AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION​

​

INTERNATIONAL​

​

​

​

​

THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, by and between ATLANTIC COAST AIRLINES HOLDINGS, INC. (ACAI) (hereinafter referred to as the “Company”) and the Air Line Pilots in the service of ATLANTIC COAST AIRLINES HOLDINGS, INC. (ACAI), as represented by the AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL (hereinafter referred to as the “Association”)

 

[Lear70]

As one in that category I don't know of one of my peers who is in favor of this thing. I could be way off here, but there is more support from us (against the TA) than you may think......

That's great to know, especially since I don't know many people in that category and haven't been able to really discuss it with many of them.

Glad you're on board with the NO vote and that you're out there pushing it with your peers, that's great stuff! :beer:

 

[Wesb737fo]

That's great to know, especially since I don't know many people in that category and haven't been able to really discuss it with many of them.

Glad you're on board with the NO vote and that you're out there pushing it with your peers, that's great stuff! :beer:

I'm on board too!

I am a 2nd yr FO with a wife and one child. I do not live beyond my means, I live a modest life, I have a modest house with modest furnishings. I flew almost 900 hours last year and would expect to fly more this year. I have $58 bucks in my bank account to last until the 10th. I cannot figure out for the life of me how anyone would think to propose a 13% raise (that is in actuality less than 5% with new contract language ) and expect me to vote for it. And don't even get me started on scope.

TO ANYONE out there that is for this TA, this is your pepsi challenge. Prove to me that my numbers are wrong. I will not insult you on this board, but someone would have to prove to me numerically that we are off on our calculations. You may pm me to discuss it privately if you like, but I don't expect anyone to be able prove that this is a better deal. Now I have to leave so I can buy some Raman Noodles, they are on sale.

 

[Citrusflyer]

Lear,
Trust me, there is no pushing required!

 

[Lear70]

I'm on board too!

I am a 2nd yr FO with a wife and one child. I do not live beyond my means, I live a modest life, I have a modest house with modest furnishings. I flew almost 900 hours last year and would expect to fly more this year. I have $58 bucks in my bank account to last until the 10th. I cannot figure out for the life of me how anyone would think to propose a 13% raise (that is in actuality less than 5% with new contract language ) and expect me to vote for it. And don't even get me started on scope.

You know, I have NEVER in my LIFE had to budget like I do now at this airline.

Maybe that's because when I flew Lears for $52,500 a year BACK IN 1998 (which is what I'll probably make, not including per diem, on year 2 wage here A FULL DECADE LATER), I was a single guy.

Maybe that's because when I was a 727 F/O making $48k a year at a crap Supplemental 121 operator BACK IN 1999, I was a single guy (although I have never had as much fun flying as I did then - great job).

Now that I have a $1,100 a month mortgage, a wife (who also works), a kid, one $250 a month car payment, etc, I find myself buying everything in bulk when the price drops a buck and putting it in the deep freezer, etc, just to make sure I can afford to go see a movie or take a vacation to Destin with the kids for a long weekend once a year (you can forget Disney, much less Atlantis in the Bahamas where the 11 year old wants to go).

I did the exact math with my last several trip pairings. 4.5% pay cut in work rules. Period. A 13% salary raise became less than 9% which isn't even COLA off the amendable date. And there's very few years that are 13% raises, most are 9% which gets cut fully in HALF with the work rule give-backs.

The NPA needs to pass the bong, 'cause I evidently ain't smokin' enough of what they're having to picture me voting yes... and that's just on pay rates alone.

 

[Clyde Frog]

The plot thickens..

From an email I received:

This is an early intel report I put together from a few tidbits of information from multiple sources. Due to the fragmentation of the info, there is a possibility that some elements will be inaccurate.



The BoD will pull the TA and send the same negotiators back to the table to fix the top 3 or 4 issues. They are doing this because they know the TA will fail and they need to fix just enough to get the 50% + 1 votes required to pass. They have no interest in starting from our existing contract and moving forward. They are still trying to salvage a doomed TA by picking a few pieces of corn out of the turd and telling you "it doesn't smell so bad".



Get ready for the spin!

 

[Ty Webb]

I won't accept anything less than:

1) A return to the table with a new NC . . no re-treads, nor Allen getting involved, period.

2) A re-write from the 2001 contract. This TA has more bugs in it than the Embassy the Soviets built for us in the 1980's . . . the one that was so riddled with bugs that it had to be torn down and begun again.

3) The BoD has to come out with some sort of show of surpport for a re-write; otherwise, we might as well all look for new jobs.

Under this contract, the 717 replacement is coming. It's about one-third EMB, one third out-sourced 85 seaters, and one third Q400 turboprops.

We could be looking at furloughs in just a few short years under this POS,, with 7 year CA bumped to EMB's at $95./hr???? Are you kidding me? These clowns should be horse-whipped!

.Vote NO, MF !

.

 

[Lear70]

That information isn't set in stone yet. From the info I'm getting, there's some division in the thoughts of the BOD for what should happen next.

They thought their Wilson Polling data was satisfied (well, 2 out of 4 ain't bad, right?) but forgot to include a crucial question. It's great to ask what people's top priorities are (better pay, better health insurance, increased 401(k) match, fix Sap 2 and trip trades), but they didn't ask what concessions we were willing to give to get those things accomplished.

So AP and the NC decided that they had free reign to pick the concessions. If they HAD asked the question, they would have known that we weren't prepared to give up very much AT ALL, as the company has been profitable, we're in the bottom 1/3 for pay anyway, in the bottom 1/2 for health insurance premiums, and that needs to change without concessions.

Could we give back a FEW things? Sure. Can we give up Scope (our future jobs in just a few short years)? No. Who's going to deliberately negotiate themselves out of a job or into a pay cut to a smaller plane? That's ludicrous.

Can we give up the entire scheduling section just to get better trip construction? Absolutely not.

AP and this NC believes they can't get anything more out of the company right now. That's fine. If you don't think you can do the job, step aside and let someone else work at it. Is it going to take more work by the pilot group? Absolutely. You've got to be willing to take this thing to the mat. If you're not, then we're not going to get very far. The polling data indicates that we ARE prepared, probably now more so than ever.

It's my opinion the BOD is split... part of them realize this thing isn't going to pass and want to kill it. AP and the NC think it just needs to be "tweaked" and sent back. They do that and you can expect an IMMEDIATE recall effort in force - it's already sitting quietly gathering supporters via email and phone calls, but it WILL happen.

If they push forward with this T.A. for a vote, it's going to die. How bad it dies depends on a lot of things. If the BOD were to re-vote then come out and say they recognize they voted on an incomplete T.A. with incomplete information and now realize it's not acceptable and they now are saying they "do not recommend", it stays within the confines of the RLA for good-faith bargaining and we vote it down by a LARGE percentage.

AP *might* keep his position in that scenario IF he replaces every member of the NC who still supports this, SH is an absolute MUST for replacement, and IF AP agrees to STAY OUT of negotiations. Do the Wilson Polling again, agree to abide 100% by the data, direct the NC to obtain that, then GET OUT and do the job of running the NPA through the merger process with Midwest and other daily union work.

If the BOD doesn't do anything and decides to let it go as-is, it'll still die, just not as spectacularly or helpfully, and they'll still get recalled.