New AirTran TA Thread

[Eagle757shark]

Ok, this is embarrassing! With all the mistakes, they pull the contract until Saturday. Guys, I smell a RAT! These guys are acting real shady and it is making me very nervous about our union leadership! The language in this TA is very poor! "Don't worry we will do it again in 3 1/2 years!" AP and Negotiating Committee, get it right NOW! Don't try to sell me with this crap! This is a disgrace and needs to be voted NO! That is my vote!

 

[CatfishVT9]

Did I read the part about average day wrong? I've been reading what everyone wrote on these threads in the past week or so, but I thought I read it as a 4 hour minimum but a 4.5 min avg on multiple pairings. So you would still get 4.5 a day min on a multi-day trip. (Page1-46)

Am I completely missing it?

 

[AFcitrus]

Just read the entire T.A. It is absolutely horrendous. AP kept saying to reserve judgement until reading the actual T.A. There is nothing in the actual document that is an improvement for pilots from the bullets. In fact, I saw a few additional negatives for us that weren't in the bullets.

The reserves lost everything in return for 5 hours of pay (which actually is still a 15-20% pay loss with a major regression in work rules/QOL). QOL for reserves will be aweful if this passes.

By the way someone mentioned "holdings" being tied to this T.A. I didn't see anywhere that it said "holdings" was tied to the merger/acquisition part of this T.A. I may have missed it though.

Speaking of merger/acquisition - AP and NPA said that we got the strongest merger/acquistion language of any contract in industry. WTFO - I saw nothing than specifically protects AAI pilots during an integration. It only gives an 18 month req. for merging of operations (FAA req.) and a timeline/participants for meetings between interested parties. The way I read it if one party (non-AAI pilots) isn't satisfied they can keep denying the integration until it is ultimately decided by an independent arbitrator (whose decision is binding). This gives us NO specific protections.

"Vastly improved Hotel section" is a joke:
- 22 hr. layover required before company is required to provide retail/tourist attractions nearby. In five years here I've NEVER had a 22 hr. layover on the 717.
-Waffle House suffices for required full service restaurant near hotel? We'll all be "smothered and covered" with sh*t if we vote this aweful TA in.

VOTE THIS TA DOWN!!!

 

[AFcitrus]

Did I read the part about average day wrong? I've been reading what everyone wrote on these threads in the past week or so, but I thought I read it as a 4 hour minimum but a 4.5 min avg on multiple pairings. So you would still get 4.5 a day min on a multi-day trip. (Page1-46)

Am I completely missing it?

You are correct about the one day = 4 hr min. But you don't get a minimum of 4.5 hrs/day on multiple day trips.

Here's the way I read it.
3-day trip:
Day 1 = 8 hrs
Day 2 = 1.5 hrs
Day 3 = 4 hours

Currently you would get paid 16 hours of pay.
This TA would pay you 13.5 hours of pay. It's a legal trip because it averages 4.5 hours/day. 13.5hrs/3days=4.5 hrs/day

You just lost 2.5 hours of pay in three days. They could conceivably do that 5 times/month and you now have lost 12.5 hours of pay/month over current contract.

Hope this helps.

 

[RIDETHELIGHTING]

I got to listen to BH tells us, we should have expected concession because everyone else gave them. Tell you what I heard some stupid sh!t today. Here is the best, two senior CA saying how come the Union is not here to sell this thing to get the yes vote. I wanted to kick some A$$!!

 

[BSkin]

I got to listen to BH tells us, we should have expected concession because everyone else gave them. Tell you what I heard some stupid sh!t today. Here is the best, two senior CA saying how come the Union is not here to sell this thing to get the yes vote. I wanted to kick some A$$!!

F%$! the senior captains. They are the only one's that this could benefit. I got hired 3 years ago, and know that barely more than half of the seniority list is senior to that. We have a large, young pilot group -- let's not blow this! HELL NO!

 

[Lear70]

Citrus, you have it correct.

The company could completely destroy our pairings with the new scheduling rules,,, or they could improve them.

There's NO contract language that requires them to build pairings like they showed the scheduling committee, NC, and BOD that they were saying reduced our sit times, made more commutable pairings, and gave us an extra day to a day and a half off.

Since there's no language preventing that, there's no way I will hose myself by voting this in.

VOTE NO!!

Incidentally, I resigned my P2P position this morning after reading the full T.A. document. The new document will have NO new information in it, just clerical corrections.

The M&A section "supposedly" has a side letter that binds holdings but, according to the guys selling this thing, it just says that Holdings will not harm the pilots in regards to the intent of the Merger language. It doesn't state the intent and bind holdings. So who gets to determine the "intent" and what would "harm" us?

You guessed it.

VOTE NO!

 

[Ty Webb]

I resigned from P2P, as well, as did some other people. No offense to J.E., the NC or the BoD. They have put in a lot of long and thankless hours. Now it's up to the pilot group to speak with one voice and show our displeasure with this 1980's management.

What a collossal waste of energy. No wonder there is such a difference between SWA's bottom line and ours.

PS., The fact that Bob H. was there selling it instead of the Union kind of says it all, doesn't it?

Anyone that would vote "yes" for this POS is too stupid and careless to operate an airplane.

.

 

[mnboyev]

I just put my P2P pin on my NO WAY TA tag.....

So what's the SPC fone # fellas ? I guess that's next...better start saving up for your strike fund ! Peace

 

[USARET]

"Waffle House suffices for required full service restaurant near hotel? We'll all be "smothered and covered" with sh*t if we vote this aweful TA in."

Damn that was funny!

 

[Eagle757shark]

I don't see how the negotiating committee could agree to something like this that will totally hose the reserve pilots. Again, to depend on a question and answer section to clarify a binding contract is unacceptable. I would of preferred the union and the company take a few more weeks and clean up the language and put in black and white what is and what isn't. I don't know why yes or no can't be brought out of these people. There is always a story or scenario that has to be evaluated. Bull, we don't need the union now to sell us on this, we all know what needs to be done. I believe the union leadership knows what is coming and its is time the pilots stand up for their profession, and preserve a quality of life that will allow us to enjoy our careers and provide for our families. The last 7 years we've heard excuses from every management team about why know one could earn money. We've watched managements steal pensions, take bonus' and destroy collective bargaining agreements! FELLOW PILOTS, wake up protect SCOPE and preserve our work rules and benefits. This TA does none of this!

 

[RadioClash]

Anyone that would vote "yes" for this POS is too stupid and careless to operate an airplane.

.

Funny you say that. Ran into Special Ed the other day. He told me that we needed to vote this in and we could fix the bad parts during the next contract negotiation in 4 years. He listed a few other reasons that made absolutely no sense. He is a lost cause. What I am afraid of though is that he could be flying with new FO's and trying to "educate" them on voting yes.

Voting NO!

 

[j41driver]

Is the TA out yet? I guess they didn't say which Saturday the revised one would be out...

 

[Eagle757shark]

Is the TA out yet? I guess they didn't say which Saturday the revised one would be out...

Pretty shady if you ask me. This NC has made a mess of this whole thing and can't even put out a finished product for the pilots to review. They want you to focus on the hourly rates.....BASICALLY.....QUANTITY NOT QUALITY! This is not a QUALITY TA!

 

[75M]

He is a lost cause. What I am afraid of though is that he could be flying with new FO's and trying to "educate" them on voting yes.

Having Special Ed argue FOR something couldn't be a better argument for voting AGAINST something. Even the newbees have figured that out.