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.

 

[alaskaplt]

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

Damn right it's a No vote for me too.

 

[Going2Baja]

I would love to hear how there is no $$$ for Retro/Signing or whatever you want to call it. Take a look at how much GS walked away with. The money is there - we just need to get it out of their greedy little fingers!

Baja.

 

[Fubijaakr]

No, I have quite a few years to go before 60.

On another topic, considering the contract allows for a "full line" down to 65 hours, this is just more evidence that the furloughs are mere hostage taking.

 

[Going2Baja]

Hat's off and heads down for the additional 28 furloughs today @ Alaska. New total is 60 on the street.

Good luck - Hang in there - Hopefully see you ALL back soon to a better contract!

Baja.

 

[Fubijaakr]

Baja,

You'll see a signing bonus. Just don't hold your breath for full retro pay.

 

[Ocity]

And just remember there are 1875 pilots on furlough at AA alone.

Totally irrelevant. No retro, No significant raise, NO VOTE.

 

[Fubijaakr]

Ocity,

You think the fact that Alaska can replace us all in a matter of two weeks with qualified airline pilots currently on furlough AND has $1.1B in the bank to do it with is irrelevant?

Do you also think the fact that U.S. in currently in the worst economic recession since the '30s is irrelevant?

Nothing happens in a vacuum, my friend. Perhaps an unemotional look at the contract when it comes out coupled with an honest appraisal of the overall economic landscape would serve you (us!) better than screeching "No retro, no big raise, NO VOTE!"

 

[becket]

.........

 

[Chief Pilot]

Ocity,

You think the fact that Alaska can replace us all in a matter of two weeks with qualified airline pilots currently on furlough AND has $1.1B in the bank to do it with is irrelevant?

Two weeks? Seriously? Come on Fubijaakr--I've got to call BS on this. It would be 4-6 weeks at best and that's if they had a pool of qualified candidates just waiting in the wings to enter training. Hmmm...training. That brings up another question. Who will train all of these qualified guys? It will take a hell of a lot more than the handful of koolaid drinkers over at the training center.

Sure, the company has $1.1B in the bank and they could probably replace us all if they wanted to, but in doing so they would totally destroy the airline. Do you honestly think investors will stick around for a month while the company burns through all of their cash. Management has a duty to the investors to give them a return on their investment. I think taking less than $.1B and getting this pilot group moving and motivated would be a better investment, especially since we made money when almost noone else did.

Much better and smarter option than your doomsday proposal. I'm guessing you'd cross the picket line too.

 

[Ih8AFYesmen]

Ocity,

You think the fact that Alaska can replace us all in a matter of two weeks with qualified airline pilots currently on furlough AND has $1.1B in the bank to do it with is irrelevant?

Do you also think the fact that U.S. in currently in the worst economic recession since the '30s is irrelevant?

Nothing happens in a vacuum, my friend. Perhaps an unemotional look at the contract when it comes out coupled with an honest appraisal of the overall economic landscape would serve you (us!) better than screeching "No retro, no big raise, NO VOTE!"

Talk is cheap; we'll just have to see. However, scare tactics such as the recession, being locked out, replaced, blah blah blah, really don't matter for many of us. Yes, they are facts and yes they can and probably will happen if we are released for self help. Everyone's different. There's a difference on how much is at stake between guys making $150+/hr vs. $60/hr. Age, current seat position, the job market, and just the "give a $hit" factor plays a big role also. The question for everyone is this: how many times are you willing to take it up the a$$ until you start fighting back? I've already had mine through Kasher, so no more me.
On a different note, I'm pretty sure that our NC and MEC won't put out another turd of a TA, since the last one got shot down unanimously. Let's pray for the best, but be ready just in case.

 

[Old School 737]

Not demanding Retro basically says to management its OK to stretch out a deal as long as possible because it does not cost us anything!

 

[Ocity]

Fujiwhatever,

I don't live my life in fear. If you lie awake at night and shiver at the thought of the big bad Ayer, then by all means accept whatever your masters are willing to give you.

I'm taking a little firmer stance than you. I have the intestinal fortitude to look a bit longer into the future than todays headlines. I'm not signing another crappy deal for 10 years. I don't want to strike but I'll be out of here like a rocket if the time comes...scabs or not.

 

[AKMD80GUY]

Not demanding Retro basically says to management its OK to stretch out a deal as long as possible because it does not cost us anything!

Exactly!

 

[Singlecoil]

For Bill and Brad's sake, I just hope whatever scabs they find are bigger and meaner than I am.

How many furloughees at American are looking for a job and not already flying for Netjets or some other entity? Would they leave that to be a scum-of-the-earth scab for a bottom-feeder like Alaska? "Gee, I want to be a pariah for the rest of my life and fly a piece of crap 737 for the rest of my natural life." I'm sure there are tons of those folks out there. Even if they find people with time in type, they haven't been Captains. Who is going to give them OE?

 

[av8instyle]

Ocity,

You think the fact that Alaska can replace us all in a matter of two weeks with qualified airline pilots currently on furlough AND has $1.1B in the bank to do it with is irrelevant?

Do you also think the fact that U.S. in currently in the worst economic recession since the '30s is irrelevant?

Nothing happens in a vacuum, my friend. Perhaps an unemotional look at the contract when it comes out coupled with an honest appraisal of the overall economic landscape would serve you (us!) better than screeching "No retro, no big raise, NO VOTE!"

Personally, I'd be pretty surprised and impressed if our management was good enough to round up 1400 scabs, and train them to FAA standards, etops, southeast, arctic, and have them on the line in one month...which is about the maximum amount of time the airline can sustain a lack of any revenue with 1.1 in the bank. Oh, and thats assuming shareholders stay put and the board doesn't fire everyone.
Yes the economy is weak, and in this economy our company is making $$. So they can afford to share the wealth. Can you imagine what our profits will be in a good economy?
So let me unemotionally screetch...No retro, no big raise, NO VOTE!

 

[av8instyle]

Not demanding Retro basically says to management its OK to stretch out a deal as long as possible because it does not cost us anything!

Shack!

 

[av8instyle]

For the scabs

In our next contract I propose that if we have to strike to get a raise then any scabs that keep their job after the strike are on a permanent Kasher pay scale. Talk it up!

 

[Ocity]

For Bill and Brad's sake, I just hope whatever scabs they find are bigger and meaner than I am.

Why take it out on the Scabs when we have Bill and Brad to thank personally?

 

[ghostrider16]

i was told by a knowledgeable source that the MEC went to the FAA and were told that ANY new pilot regardless of type ratings or 121 status would have to complete the entire (mind numbing long/2 month plus) alaska ops spec approved program...no shortcuts from the feds....there is no way the feds would sign off on a short program and risk an accident...they could care less about the company.....and they have to "be trained by an alaska check airman"...some of which may be living their own dream but some of which are ready to bust out the slippy fist........

 

[wscrj]

Fubi,

You are in a state of near panic. Walk away from things for a little while (especially this site and the ALPA boards) and clear your head. DO NOT continue to post in this state. You are not doing anyone any good, including yourself.

Try and relax....resolution is coming.