New AirTran TA Thread

[CAL EWR B737]

Lear,

Thanks for the info I'll check the other thread. How many seats are in the 717 is that considered small jet? Is your NMB mediator still Mike Tossi? I worked with Mike everyday for four months in 2001. At the time he was the USAIRWAYS PHL CA Rep he was kind enough to volunteer to spend every day in the crew room to convince the CAL pilots to vote in ALPA. He was former PEX and CAL before heading to AIRWAYS in 88. I know when I knew him he was extremely labor friendly can't imagine him not being so in his new position with the NMB.

I posted the new 717/737 pay rates on another thread, take a look through the last 4 or 5 pages on the Majors forum and you'll find it.

A couple details that may or may not have been in the other posts:

We're giving up our pay based on customer schedules and going to a 3 month average from the previous year of actual block. The MEC and NC have admitted this is approximately 6 minutes we lose per leg (although they keep dropping that number every time they talk about it because people are so angry).

We're also giving up door close as the beginning of pay until wheels move. The MEC and NC have admitted that is, on average, a 3 minute concession per leg as well. The flight attendants have a "me, too" clause in their contract and if we give this up, they give it up unwillingly and they're pretty angry about it.

So, that's 9 minutes per leg times my average of 45 legs per month (3 legs per day * 15 days per month) = 405 minutes, or 6 hours and 45 minutes (6.7) in actual hours of pay I lose every month from those two rules which, on an 85 hour credit line, is a 7.8% pay cut.

The actual hourly wage increases average 9% for most seniority ranges (some as high as 13%), so the total pay increase drops to only 2%-6%.

Not to mention, the F/O wages at Date Of Signing are STILL among the lowest in the major airline industry for the equipment we fly (in the bottom 3), the company got rid of the 13% override pay for the 737-800, and the SJ pay rates are the lowest in the Major Airline industry as well, as is Scope (no Majors have as loose of Scope restrictions as this proposes, nor do they have SJ rates this low).

We gave back an AWFUL lot to get a 2-6% pay raise... that might go away if they start getting rid of the 717's and replace them with EMB-195's.

 

[AFcitrus]

Yes the NPA says 3 -max of 5 min. but only if you over block. If you underblock by more than the dwell time you get block. If you overblock by 5 but had 5 of dwell then you wood lose the time. What I was trying to get at is we need to be more upset about the "core block" the 4.5 cum day and RESV and scop.

However I think they (the company)are using scop to scare us into the 100 seat rate. If the 100 seat rate is any TA that is ratified the 717 WILL BE GONE.

I agree Fireman-- We would only lose pay on those legs that we overblock. But here is the "kicker". Since our "core block" time would reduce scheduled blocks by an average of 6 minutes per leg, we will be overblocking a lot more legs than we currently do. Subsequently that door time loss will become a much larger number than under the current contract.

I do agree with you though, the "core block" and 4.5 hr average is where we are going to lose a bundle.

By the way, can any lawyers tell me the difference between the terms "shall" and "will" when used in contracts. I've always heard that the only legally binding term is "shall". If you look at this TA it has a lot of sentences that say "The pilot shall..." when refering to parts of the agreement that hurt us.

On the other hand in sentences that restrict the company the sentence states " The company will..." This is not exclusively the case but it happens enough that I noticed and I wondered if we should be making a bigger deal out of it.

 

[CAL EWR B737]

Eagle,

Thanks for the additional information. I agree with you 100%, pay and benefits is just one part of the contract. Quality of life at work and at home are just as or even more important. I am really impressed you guys are trying to protect your new hires, something I am very embarrassed we didn't do with our POS 02.

I am with you 100% if there is anything CAL ALPA can do for you guys please let us know. If and when you picket please let us know and we will publicize for our pilots. We have many pilots who commute from ATL and I am sure many would like to show support and join the picketing.

Hang tough!

Frats,

Jayson Baron
CAL ALPA STRIKE PREPAREDNESS CHAIRMAN

First of all, thanks for asking. This is not just about pay rates (although they could be better). This is about horrible work rules and giving back work rules from the previous contract. I think sometime we get too focused just on a hourly pay rate. This contract is about not giving up scope (current scope of 70 seats or less) nothing more, protecting our reserves, and fair first year pay. What the hell is market conditions and who sets them? That is what our company wants to do for our new hires!(and they have to pay for lodging while in training) Totally unacceptable. Oh by the way, this contract is totally concessionary: They want us to fly to Mexico, Canada, and the Carribean at domestic pay rates. Last time I checked, those were international destinations and I need a passport to go in and out of these countries. Reserves doing Ready Reserves after they complete a trip, are you kidding me, we gave them this. Sick-call may have to provide a note. (folks read section 10 para. C part 7) In questionable cases? What is questionable and what establishes that? I can pick this thing apart, this TA is not in the best interest of this pilot group. The language is too vague. Why hasn't the union set a place and time for road shows two weeks after a TA has been out? It is a waste of time to go in the office and listen to those guys try to sell this thing. Lets get in a neutral location where we can look you straight in the eye and ask, how is this helping this pilot group. Give us a hotel conference room or the NPA office and set a time. These NC members are scared and very defensive, because guys here are not impressed with this garbage! I wont even talk about, the loss of starting pay when the door closes, loosing platinum ppo health insurance, and no stock options or profit sharing. What have these guys been doing for over two years?

 

[rumrunnr03]

Ta

It's very, very quiet and guarded. No one wants to be the lone standout in the crew room when there are, at any given time, 2-5 union reps across the hall wandering over to get people to talk to and having "info sessions" in the Crew Room (I'm currently sitting at one of the tables in the crew room with a bunch of "VOTE NO" stickers spread out on the table in front of me - the union guys don't look amused).

Will it be voted down? I think so, but it's absolutely CRUCIAL we get accurate counter-information to the pilot group at the road shows. They're selling this thing through fear and, quite honestly, disinformation. I watched one of the NPA guys in here earlier today arguing with a Captain about one of the sections. The CA was showing a section to the union rep and the union rep was sitting there actually saying "That's not true." The guy was pointing it out in black and white, and the union rep just said, "If it says that, we'll fix it, don't worry."

EXCUSE ME??!! When, exactly, are you planning on fixing it? 3 1/2 years from now when we re-open Section 6?

If we get enough info out and people ask the hard questions and don't get satisfying answers, I think we can bury this thing easily. If we don't, it'll be WAY too close for comfort - there's enough people scattered around (mostly mid- to senior CA's) who are firmly enough in the "YES" category to worry me that they'll be heard and believed, even though the T.A. speaks for itself in no uncertain terms.


Stay tuned. The only way that will happen is if this thing goes down in flames, and I don't think you'll see the whole BOD removed/replaced, that would take WAY too much time to spool up unless they're replaced with highly-experienced union guys and there's too much bad blood between the last group of NPA leaders and the people on property to do that.

I do believe the NC will go away, as will probably AP. When the TA results are out, you'll see a bigger push for recalls if it's voted down.

Lear70,
Ask anyone of the Comair guys about our previous 2 concessionary LOA's and the results. They will have allot of insight on this TA. Virtually identical. Good luck. We are all watching.
How can I get one of your stickers?

 

[Wesb737fo]

Yes the NPA says 3 -max of 5 min. but only if you over block. If you underblock by more than the dwell time you get block. If you overblock by 5 but had 5 of dwell then you wood lose the time. What I was trying to get at is we need to be more upset about the "core block" the 4.5 cum day and RESV and scop.

However I think they (the company)are using scop to scare us into the 100 seat rate. If the 100 seat rate is any TA that is ratified the 717 WILL BE GONE.

Fireman,

I think you are right, looking at my past schedules it looks like more credit time lost due to the "4.5 ave". (around 2 hours for ave and :40 - 1hour on the losing door to door. ). Around 3 hours total.

Has anyone crunched numbers on how the new way the company determines credit will drop credit values? Assuming that using ave. block instead of published schedule will be a smaller number. Where did the six minutes per leg come from?

Assuming cost of living around 3% and work rule changes taking a minimum of 3% ( the best I can figure right now), then I would be getting around a 6% raise. When I was polled, I believe I said I wouldn't even consider something that low for compensation.

Don't get me started on scope. 20% of ASM for subs means ballpark 15-20 86 seaters and another 15-20 for 70 seaters. Maybe 40 airplanes.

A 6% pay raise for relaxing scope, giving up reserve pay, door to door, and a 4 min day.

Someone will have to show me the numbers on how this is a better deal.

 

[j41driver]

Someone will have to show me the numbers on how this is a better deal.

If anyone could do that they'd be lying to you.

 

[Lear70]

I think the door closed thing only comes into play if you over block. Do not get me wrong there are a lot of other items to vote NO on. In think you would be more creditable if you do not use three minutes for evey leg.

That very well might be true.

There's a group of us putting our own "bulletpoint" presentation together AGAINST the T.A. to take to ops, road shows, etc, with specific contract section references to people can look it up and verify it for themselves without having to dig for it.

One of the other guys is doing Section 4, I'll ask and make sure that the door closed thing isn't a double whammy and, if it is, what situations specifically does it apply to or not based on look-back schedules.

We blocked almost even on this last trip (including the overages and underages for each leg). The problem is we don't know what the rolling 3-month average is if they went to it now (core block), so we don't know how to cost analyze it. If it goes down substantially, we will end up over-blocking on most of our legs and the 3 minute door WILL apply.

This is why I'm not doing Section 4 - too much that I just don't know that some of the other guys might be better equipped to find out.

I also belive the 717 will be gone within five years to be replaced with E190/195. The 717s that were painted were done so under warranty due to some problem with the paint booth at Long Beach.

I believe you are correct. There's just too much activity between Embraer and AAI management as of late to ignore. More and more rumors from senior management and the people in the training center saying the Embraers are coming sooner rather than later.

 

[Lear70]

I agree Fireman-- We would only lose pay on those legs that we overblock. But here is the "kicker". Since our "core block" time would reduce scheduled blocks by an average of 6 minutes per leg, we will be overblocking a lot more legs than we currently do. Subsequently that door time loss will become a much larger number than under the current contract.

This happened at my last carrier,,, we went to "trip value" which was this 3-month average look back from the previous year as a "core block" number. Same thing, different name.

We overblocked on almost every leg. Religiously. And the company didn't care as long as D-0 and A-14 from the DOT schedule was met.

The way I see it for pay, as best I can calculate, is that it's a loss either way:

If we under-block a pairing, then we lose however much we underblock down to the "average" of 6 minutes.

If we over-block a pairing, we lose up to 5 minutes each leg from door close (an average of 3 minutes each leg).

On my last trip, I overblocked 5 legs out of 11. The average over-block was 23 minutes or about 4 minutes per leg. Pretty close to the 3 minute average the NPA said you'd lose from door close.

The average under-block was 43 minutes for those 6 legs, or about 7 minutes per leg. Again, VERY close to the NPA average of 6 minutes lost per leg due to going to "core block".

Adding those up (not cumulative, just using the ACTUAL number of minutes per leg), I came up to a loss of 51 minutes of pay for this last trip out of a total credit of 23:50 for a 4 day. No other trip or duty rig applied as each day was just under 11 hours of duty and no other average day or otherwise would apply (although we did sit twice in MCO for up to 3 hours on 2 of the 4 days).

That's just shy of a 4% loss in pay due to work rules. On 2nd year pay, my straight salary increases by 13%, so I actually would have only got a 9% increase in W-2 pay which is, basically, COLA from when the contract became amendable.

And I have to give up all the other work rules, Scope concessions, and everything else to get that?

Not to mention, in some years, 5% was all the wages went up, so for THOSE seniority pilots, you're signing for a 1% wage.

Yeah, THAT'S intelligent.

VOTE NO!

 

[Lear70]

Lear70,
Ask anyone of the Comair guys about our previous 2 concessionary LOA's and the results. They will have allot of insight on this TA. Virtually identical. Good luck. We are all watching.
How can I get one of your stickers?

Email me your mailing address at [email protected] and I'll drop some in the mail to you - have to make a mail run today anyway for the other stickers that need to go out.

 

[-9Capt]

What I was trying to get at is we need to be more upset about the "core block" the 4.5 cum day and RESV and scop..

For once, I agree with you.

 

[airline#5]

Hey Cal EWR 737,

Your a standup guy. I wish the NPA had some balls and thought more about group equity vs. individual interests. They will not picket for themselves, let alone another pilot group. This is the most fractured union I've ever encountered.

To think I chose FL over CAL. Yet another wrong dicision in a list of many with this career.

 

[mnboyev]

Ya... whatever... I think you will see some picketing at AAI.. Did you call your SPC chair yet... I called this morning... PM me.. AirTran is a good airline..... young pilot group... inexperienced union... tough management.. it will work out...

TA No Way...

 

[twepilot]

Wrong. Read the TA. Where does it say that all reserve lines can't have moveable days? If you can show me I will stand corrected.

d. Reserve Line holders:
1) All reserve lines will contain at least two (2) blocks of days off containing three (3) consecutive days off.
2) Reserve Pilots will receive not less then ten (10) calendar days off in a thirty (30) day bid period, or eleven (11) calendar days off in a thirty-one (31) day bid period
3) The Company may convert reserves to a system of movable days off as defined in 14.d.4). below. Each Reserve Pilot will then receive not less than twelve (12) calendar days off in that bid period.
a) Should the Company make this conversion, the Association will meet with the Company after three (3) full bid periods to evaluate the effectiveness of the new system. Either party may discontinue this system with written notice to the other.
b) With said notice, the Company will return to the day off limits set in 14.d.2. within three (3) full bid periods.
4) Reserve Lines with Movable Days Off (R-MDO):
a) R-MDO holders will receive a minimum of twelve (12) days off each bid period. At least two (2) of the day off blocks shall be three (3) consecutive days.
b) Crew Scheduling may move a R-MDO Pilot’s days off in two (2) ways:
(1)Reserve Period Adjustment
(a)Three (3) or more calendar days prior to the first day affected, one (1) or two (2) consecutive days off may be moved in either direction to receive a reserve TAP assignment. Once moved, those days off may no longer be adjusted utilizing the MDO method.
(b)The new reserve TAP shall be the same type as the TAP removed and will comply with F.11.a.
(2)Flight assignment
(a)Flying may be assigned to a R-MDO that spans into his day(s) off.
(b)The assignment may span no more than two (2) current calendar days off in either direction.
(c)The assignment must occur within the three (3) day assignment window provided that:
(i)The notification is made during a TAP or an existing duty period.
(ii)Such flying assignment must be scheduled to start no later than the last calendar day of the current block of reserve days, or scheduled to arrive no earlier than the first day of a block of reserve days.
5) Movable days off may not result in a R-MDO Pilot receiving a single calendar day off.
6) After the Final Schedule Award, a R-MDO Pilot may designate up to two (2) of his blocks of days off as “golden days off” (GDO) which the Company may not move, except by mutual consent between the Pilot and the Company, after the Final Schedule Award. GDO’s will not apply if the Pilot is awarded a move-up line.
7) Crew Scheduling may move a R-MDO’s days off only when consistent with need to protect reserve availability.

I DID READ THE TA. It "appears" That a moveable day off (-MDO) Reserve line will be annotated as such. Similar to an RS RS1 RS2 etc. And yes I am a line holder. WTF difference does that have to do with anything.

People talk about unity and supporting the union. I've heard nothing but how we should now recall the BOD and others. This is from the very people that supported AP recently in the BOD election. Thats not unity guys. Use your vote to show your displeasure or disdain.

RV

 

[shindler]

It resemble the Trans States contact......

 

[SLEDNECK]

If anyone could do that they'd be lying to you.

SMOKE AND MIRRORS!!

I haven't been to work lately, has anybody talked any pilots that are actually going to vote for this POS?

 

[Lear70]

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.

-Removal of provision in 1-C-1 where the company CURRENTLY, in the event of furlough, cannot use non-seniority list pilots to perform non-revenue flying (i.e. they can use retirees currently working in the training center to move aircraft, perform maintenance flights, ferry flights, acceptance flights (new deliveries), etc, even if we have pilots on furlough).

-Removal of similar provision in Section 18 that says they must furlough training center pilots not on the Master Seniority List before they furlough line pilots. Training center retirees are now a protected class of employees.

SCOPE

-Addition of new language: The requirements of Section 1-C-1 (use of seniority list pilots for ALL company flying) do not apply for subsidiaries the Company (or the Holding company) create to fly Turboprops OR Turbojet aircraft under 86 seats. In other words, AirTran Holdings can create ‘AirTran Express’ to do ALL allowed flying in this section and not have to use AirTran pilots to do it.

-The MEC has been telling you that the company is limited to 5-8% of the block hours flown by RJ’s; that’s ONLY true IF the company has an “unavailability of aircraft or pilots” as defined in Section 1.C.2 and 1.C.2.a. If there’s no “unavailability”, that limit does not apply, and the contract SPECIFICALLY STATES THIS in the very next section, 1.C.3.

-1-C-3. Allows unlimited use of turboprops by the company at regionals (express or commuter carrier), including the 90-seat Q-400 turboprop that flies at almost 400 KTAS. Frontier Airlines pilots are enjoying zero, stagnant growth while their company has purchased Q-400’s and has placed them at a regional carrier. This aircraft is more cost-efficient to fly than any of our aircraft on 600NM and shorter segments (ref Bombardier cost analysis).

-1-C-3-a. Allows the regional we contract with to operate larger aircraft than previously allows, up to 106 seats and 114,000 pounds (with other airlines, not ours). They have to do this IF we give up Scope because the companies we would contract with are already operating 100-seat jets over 100,000 pounds (Mesa, etc). The tricky part also is that if that sub-service regional LATER gets larger aircraft, we are not required to terminate our Agreement with them. We can’t renew the contract, but it can run for its duration, and there’s no contractual “duration limit”.

-1-C-3-e. There are reductions of up to 2% of ASM’s for RJ use based on how many aircraft we operate, but we are already over 100 aircraft and that remained the same at 20% total operations, 10% of those can be 79-86 seats.

-1-C-3-e-1. Tries to say that if the company isn’t growing ASM’s, that the number of ASM’s operated by an “express carrier” is limited to 75% of the above ASM limit, but LATER goes on to say that if a contract is already in place and our growth stops, that limit will not apply. In other words, we could set all these RJ contracts in place, then stop taking 737 deliveries indefinitely, and we would not be allowed to rescind those contracts OR stop deliveries of new RJ’s to the feeder AND, what’s worse, we have NO furlough protection in the event they decide to reduce the 717 fleet. Don’t take my word for it (or the MEC’s), read it for yourself, ZERO protection in the Scope or Furlough section in this scenario.

-ASM’s – this is very ambiguous, and no one has done the math for you, so I will. The currently-flown AirTran ASM’s were obtained using the company’s last-quarter 10k statement which is public information available on Yahoo! Finance. RJ calculations made certain assumptions on average stage lengths and legs flown per day based on my last regional which is average for the industry (Pinnacle Airlines)

[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]AirTran Airways flew 5.21 Billion ASM’s for the 3 months ending March 31st, 2007 (5,207,132,000). Divided by 3 is 1,735,710,667 (1.7 Billion ASM’s operated per month).

[FONT=&quot]o[/FONT] Assuming an 86-seat RJ (a 90- or 100- seat aircraft configured to 86 seats with a business class) operates 6 legs a day on an average of an 600 mile stage length (2 hours, 10 hour per day utilization). 10% of the total current AirTran ASM’s above is 173,571,067 seat miles per month. Divided by 86 seats is 2,018,268 miles each 86-seater can fly per month. Divided by 600 SM average stage length is approx 3,364 legs per month. Divided by 30 days per month is 112 legs per day. Divided by 6 is 19 of the 79-86-seat aircraft can be operated on property RIGHT NOW by feeder carriers. Doesn’t sound too bad. But do that math with all 20% as 70-seaters.

[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]A 70-seat RJ (a 70-seater or a 90-seater configured to 70 seats) operates the same way as the 86-seater: 6 legs per day, 600 mile average stage length. Up to 20% of the total ASM’s can be 70-seat aircraft which equals 347,142,133 seat miles per month. Divided by 70 seats is 4,959,173 miles each 70-seater can fly per month. Divided by 600 SM average stage length is approx 8,265 legs per month. Divided by 30 is 276 legs per day. Divided by 6 legs per day is a total of 46 of the 70-seat aircraft that can be operated on property RIGHT NOW by feeder carriers. That’s more than 25% of our total fleet size.

- They could put all those airplanes on contract, then completely suspend 737 deliveries. Didn’t we just defer some of our 737 deliveries and sell 2 others? If the RJ’s under contract are just as cheap to operate (or cheaper on a seat-mile basis), why would they NOT do this? The answer is that there’s nothing stopping them from just this scenario.

- So, to recap Scope in our current market environment, we’d give up Q-400 turboprops just like Frontier has and is getting hosed with, give up to 25% of our fleet to be replaced by outsourced 70-seat RJ’s, and sign for up to a 40% pay cut for 90-100 seat RJ’s to come here. Is that the future “growth” you want at AirTran?

- Lastly, the MEC will tell you that the company doesn’t really WANT any of these RJ’s and you won’t see them under this contract. When is the last time you saw a company bargain for concessions in a contract and then not use them? Is there ANY language that protects us from the company “changing their mind” after they get more financial data for these aircraft and implementing a plan similar to the above? The answer: “No, there is NO protection in this T.A. for us to continue our current growth plan.”

SMALL JET PAY 78-100 Seats

-I put this in this section simply because, to me, it’s more critical to what I believe the company has planned, which is the addition of SJ’s to replace most, if not all, of the 717 fleet as the 195 is a more cost-effective aircraft than the 717.

(See SJ pay scale in T.A.)

-EVERY SINGLE YEAR AND SEAT is less than jetBlue blended rates.

-EVERY major carrier who flies SJ’s on-property has a higher rate than our proposed rate. These, combined with the Scope giveaways (which are the worst in the major airline industry), will make us the lowest-compensated and lowest-scope major in existence for these aircraft.

 

[Lear70]

The above is my analysis of Section 1, outside of M&A protection, which I'm still working on.

SMOKE AND MIRRORS!!

I haven't been to work lately, has anybody talked any pilots that are actually going to vote for this POS?

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

I got a LOT of dirty looks in ops a few days ago with my stickers and chats with pilots who wanted to talk about it.

None of the dirty look people would come over, but they overheard our conversations. About half of the pilots against this who stopped and talked were F/O's, half were CA's, all just as mad.

They're not the ones that worry me; they'll vote NO and require little help to do so. It's the silent ones that won't talk about it either way. I know this is a very personal issue and tensions are high, and you just don't know how the quiet ones are going to vote.

THAT'S why it's SO important to get the real hidden pitfalls of this T.A. out to the pilots at the roadshows, so they can see the things the NPA isn't telling them and ask the hard questions the NPA doesn't want to talk about.

After that, if they STILL want to vote yes, that's their business. I may think them foolish or naive for doing so, but everyone's entitled to their own opinion.

Good luck to all of us!

 

[j41driver]

TWE,

The problem with your "if you don't want it, then don't bid it" philosophy regarding MDO reserve lines is that somebody (the junior guys most likely...or maybe even you if you forget to bid) is going to get stuck with it. This should have no place in our contract.

 

[likeitis]

Thanks Lear for fighting this turd. Our MEC said it was going to be bad but I would have never guessed your NC would agree to so many concessions. PM me the names on the NC. I'm kinda interested in who they are. Who is coach by the way?

 

[Lear70]

TWE,

The problem with your "if you don't want it, then don't bid it" philosophy regarding MDO reserve lines is that somebody (the junior guys most likely...or maybe even you if you forget to bid) is going to get stuck with it. This should have no place in our contract.

J41 is exactly right.

The other problem is that they could make ALL the lines like that and NO ONE would have a choice (can't find where they're limited to make just certain lines MDO lines).

The other problem is that they could make a bunch of lines with "tactical reserve", then convert them later to "move-up lines", and eliminate any tactical reserves at all, therefore no one would actually GET the long-call reserve and be able to sit at home.

The other problem... well, I could go on and on about the reserve give-backs, but someone is working on that to post as well.

Bottom line: if you had to sit reserve for 2+ years as a CA upgrade, you wouldn't like it very much, and would be lucky to keep your marriage intact if you didn't live in ATL. The QOL is going to be among the worst of regionals for reserve pilots if this thing passes...

I didn't sign up here to live under regional work rules. Did you?