New Alaska Negotiations Thread

[Ih8AFYesmen]

Pilot to pilot guy in crew room said he heard that the last thing to finish up in contract talks is the retirement section. Take it for what its worth. I hope he is right.

Hence, the "cautiously optimistic" statement, I suppose. Let's hope the retirement package doesn't consist of Plans A thru Z. I'm all for keeping the A-plan.
I hope this P-to-P guy is right.

 

[Chief Pilot]

Baja is correct...furloughees cannot vote for the TA.

All I have to say is that this better be an impressive contract with retro pay or my vote will be no. I have no intention of rewarding this management for the dirty tricks and stall tactics they have used throughout this negotiation process.

A precedent should not be set that allows management folks to drag their feet at the negotiating table and be rewarded by forcing us to continue working under an unfavorable contract. They need a monetary penalty, because that's the only thing they seem to respond to. No retro=NO vote for me.

 

[Going2Baja]

No Retro = No Vote

No Large Raise = No vote

No Reserve Language = No Vote

No Improved Reserve = No Vote

Baja.

 

[Fubijaakr]

Might as well vote NO now, Baja.

Must be nice to be able to formulate an opinion without reading the proposal.

 

[Going2Baja]

Might as well vote NO now, Baja.

Must be nice to be able to formulate an opinion without reading the proposal.

Hopefully you have your limitations as well. And I didn't realize we had a proposal as of yet.

Baja.

 

[igneousy2]

The Furlough grievance is being fast-tracked and is slated for arbitration (AGAIN!) this summer. The company has sand-bagged on this at least twice that I know of now.

23.A.1 requires the company to meet with the MEC "and establish a program for reducing the number of hours in the bid blocks to prevent the furlough."

It is our position (ours=all of us collectively through our union) that the company has not complied with this section of the contract.

This has NOTHING to do with any of the reduceded time programs that have been implemented.

There seems to be some confusion so I'll try my best to explain what a "program for reducing the number of hours in the bid blocks" should have looked like.

I'm WAG'ing the numbers but pre-furlough 1500 pilots averaging say 80 hours=120,000 total pilot hours.

Company comes to union and says we need to cut out 10% of the flying hours and come down to 108,000 hours. (again this is what should have happened...this did not actually happen)

You can do it two ways, you can cut down on pilots so you have 1,350 pilots flying 80 hours=108,000...which is essentially what the company did (that's where the origianl 150-200 furloughed number came from that gs was tossing around last fall...actual reduction is to 1,374).

The other way to do it is to take the 108,000 hours and divide it by 1500 and build the lines to that amount so you get...72 hours. In other words if the company builds all lines to an average of 72 hours then there would have been ZERO furloughs...which is what our contract requires them to do...hence the grievance.

Ironically, in my opinion, had they just reduceded the lines to 72 they would have covered the same amount of flying FOR LESS MONEY because they would have cut the hours of everyone including guys at the MAX of the payscale. Instead they keep the top guys/gals pay the same but cut the bottom lowest paid guys down to zero.

Again...the early outs, reduce bid blocks, or reduce reserve programs do NOT relieve them of their obligations under 23.A.1.

Fly Safe,

 

[turbodriver]

I saw the union blurb on this and I'm very interested in how this plays out. The CBA says that programs have to be implemented to PREVENT (not reduce or mitigate) furloughs.

I'd gladly fly a 72 hour line instead of applying for unemployment today.... I'm sure with our united pilot group of VSA'ers and open time fanatics this would have been accomplished with no problem. And I'm sure that the senior guys in the union would gladly fly reduced 72 hour lines just to keep us junior peons on property...

(dripping with sarcasm....)

 

[Fubijaakr]

Hopefully you have your limitations as well. And I didn't realize we had a proposal as of yet.

Baja.

I think you should just keep an open mind instead of saying "If it doesn't meet this criteria I'm voting NO!".

For example, you might want to do a little research and find out how many airlines have gotten retro pay. Not signing bonuses, but actual retro pay in the last ten years.

You go "autoNO" over one issue and you may reject gains in other areas of the contract.

When there IS a proposal, read it with an open mind. And just remember there are 1875 pilots on furlough at AA alone.

 

[Chief Pilot]

Fubi,

I don't think anyone, including Baja, has said that they won't read the contract in it's entirety. There are certain criteria however that should be met and people should not be spring loaded to vote YES if we actually see a TA. For us to make concessions in any part of a TA just to make some gains in another part after the raping that happened nearly 4 years ago is ludacris.

As far as retro pay is concerned and who received it in the last 10 years, you only have to look at what administration we were under at the time. Nobody had a prayer, and actually our compensation packages across the industry took a far greater hit than it had in the previous 20 years. I hate to sound cliche', but it really is time to "take it back." Hey, call it retro or call it a signing bonus, but it better be on par with what our retro would have been.

Yes I do know the difference between retro and a straight signing bonus, and I imagine management is much less willing to offer retro even if the numbers match. That's an entirely different argument.

I have no intention of signing off on a TA that is concessionary in any way regardless of how many pilots are furloughed at American Airlines. I care about the pilots furloughed at Alaska Airlines. The argument about furloughees at other airlines makes me suspect that you would be willing to vote yes to just about anything regardless of it's worth. I'm looking out for our distant future...you seem to be looking out for your immediate future. With 17k hours, are you nearing 60?

 

[av8instyle]

I have no intention of signing off on a TA that is concessionary in any way regardless of how many pilots are furloughed at American Airlines. I care about the pilots furloughed at Alaska Airlines. The argument about furloughees at other airlines makes me suspect that you would be willing to vote yes to just about anything regardless of it's worth. I'm looking out for our distant future...you seem to be looking out for your immediate future. With 17k hours, are you nearing 60?

xactly. We're not AA. We made $. After 4yrs of this crap, lack of retro is a no for me.