No comment on ASA PBS LOA yet?

[Oakum_Boy]

Exactly what kind of growth opportunites will there be for clapped out, duct taped CRJ-200's??? No PBS system is going to finance new airplanes. Ever ride in the back of these heaps? I smell a slow but steady Mesaisation of ASA by Inc. If any nice new opportunites to fly NextGen -900's come along, guess who's gonna take 'em. Not us, and not even us with PBS.

 

[GeekMaster]

I still haven’t gotten a good answer why this will be the best offer and we will get garbage later? The best answer that I have gotten is. “You don’t understand section 6 negotiations“. That’s not an answer. That’s just an intimidation tactic. You guys like to fall for those just as fast as the smoke and mirrors tactics.
I don’t even know why I bother when you guys openly say you don’t care about what this might do to the future just what will you get out of it right now. Again I’m sure that is what the people said when they voted your high paying job away by relaxing scope. I hope you all enjoy the 5+ years of section 6 you are setting yourselves up for nicely.

Ok, I've stated earlier how section 6 starts. Each party presents an opener. In that opener, each party presents an offer as far to their side as imaginable. The purpose is to negotiate to an agreeable middle. Once it gets to mediation, each side doesn't get to tell the other that they are being unreasonable anymore. They get to try to convince a mediator of that fact. The mediator has no favoritism. He/she considers both sides. So that leaves us spending a considerable amount of time just to negotiate back to the point we're at now. Once we do, the mediator looks and considers whether it's reasonable.

So then, let's look at it in advance. Is it reasonable? You yourself have already acknowledged that you think it probably is. If the mediator thinks it's a reasonable deal, he/she will NOT release us into self help.

I DO CARE about the future of this company. This LOA is a good agreement. I consider it on its own merit. Now it's your turn. I asked you previously and now I ask again.

What exactly would you expect to gain in this agreement that's not already there by rejecting it?

 

[jetracer5]

Too many loopholes? Have you read the TA yet? WTF is up with you ASA people. A bunch of whining, complaining children who think ALPA can solve everything and that the company is out to screw you over every chance they get because they want to hear you complain. Yeah right. If I could get my way, I'd just have those guys impose this without a vote just to torque off the whiners. Unfortunately, I am just one vote. I like the system and think it will be good for me. I can choose what I want to work and am not bound by the rigidity of the current system. Plus, it will make my company (the place where the paychecks come from) more efficient.

This is why I make 30K a year flying a jet

 

[GeekMaster]

This is why I make 30K a year flying a jet

Reality check:

If that's what you're making at ASA, it's because you are at the very bottom of the seniority list. Otherwise you don't work at ASA. With that conclusion, it means that you were hired with almost no experience OR you have experience from another airline and lost your job and came to ASA. In either case, it's the same result.

EVERY airline has a weighted 1st year pay. Even at Delta you're going to make less than 50K first year. IT'S THE INDUSTRY STANDARD !!!!

Back to the issue here: Is THIS a good PBS LOA for ASA ?? On it's own merit?

 

[aircombat]

Ok, I've stated earlier how section 6 starts. Each party presents an opener. In that opener, each party presents an offer as far to their side as imaginable. The purpose is to negotiate to an agreeable middle. Once it gets to mediation, each side doesn't get to tell the other that they are being unreasonable anymore. They get to try to convince a mediator of that fact. The mediator has no favoritism. He/she considers both sides. So that leaves us spending a considerable amount of time just to negotiate back to the point we're at now. Once we do, the mediator looks and considers whether it's reasonable.

So then, let's look at it in advance. Is it reasonable? You yourself have already acknowledged that you think it probably is. If the mediator thinks it's a reasonable deal, he/she will NOT release us into self help.

I DO CARE about the future of this company. This LOA is a good agreement. I consider it on its own merit. Now it's your turn. I asked you previously and now I ask again.

What exactly would you expect to gain in this agreement that's not already there by rejecting it?

I have already answered that question as well. A quicker section 6 negotiation then if we give them PBS in advance. They want PBS fast how can we not use that in section 6. About the mediator in section 6 why can’t you tell them we have negotiated PBS thus far and I think the pilots will agree to the terms if improvements are made in the other sections. Why would the mediator think the pilots would agree to something worse then the already voted down LOA. I know it’s going to be more work for you guys but I think you can handle it.

 

[jetracer5]

Reality check:

If that's what you're making at ASA, it's because you are at the very bottom of the seniority list. Otherwise you don't work at ASA. With that conclusion, it means that you were hired with almost no experience OR you have experience from another airline and lost your job and came to ASA. In either case, it's the same result.

EVERY airline has a weighted 1st year pay. Even at Delta you're going to make less than 50K first year. IT'S THE INDUSTRY STANDARD !!!!

Back to the issue here: Is THIS a good PBS LOA for ASA ?? On it's own merit?

Reality Check!

YTD as of 12/15 paycheck $33487.46
3rd year line holding F/O roughly #250 of the CRJ200 at ASA

I guess its been awhile since you have been a f/o. Welcome to reality!

 

[Jack-O-Lantern]

Reality Check!

YTD as of 12/15 paycheck $33487.46
3rd year line holding F/O roughly #250 of the CRJ200 at ASA

I guess its been awhile since you have been a f/o. Welcome to reality!

Waaah Waaah, Ive been with a regional for two years and I only make 33K Waaah. Your such the typical Whiner of which we speak that think they deserve everything a 25 year captain gets and makes.
For F#$K Sake!
Sit back down and have another beer!

 

[Flybywire44]

Is anyone else wondering why they (ALPA) so hell bent on pushing this through right now, before February? What do our union officials know that they aren't telling us? PBS provides nothing to the company until the company starts to grow, so why are they saying this. PBS was thought of very poorly by the association until recently, so what is the general pilot group not seeing here?

They'll save money this summer when they don't recall our furloughed pilots. Additionally... there will be less upgrades. We should vote no, at least the first time.

 

[sweptback]

We should vote no, at least the first time.

What makes you think that either the company or union will be interested in negotiating further after a failed TA?

The company will say, "We gave them the best PBS system in the industry and they gave us the finger."

The union will say, "The pilots have spoken, and they don't want PBS. No sense exploring this further."

And just so you know, they'll both be right.

 

[aircombat]

What makes you think that either the company or union will be interested in negotiating further after a failed TA?

The company will say, "We gave them the best PBS system in the industry and they gave us the finger."

The union will say, "The pilots have spoken, and they don't want PBS. No sense exploring this further."

And just so you know, they'll both be right.

Because the company wants this badly. What's in the koolaid that makes us think we are the ones that want PBS the most. Why wouldn’t they negotiate further? That’s what we pay the union to do. In section 6 we can improve the other sections in order to sweeten the deal. This is giving them a new contract without even having to give a bonus check. This LOA totally changes the two largest sections of the contract.

 

[samballs]

Has the union or company given you guys anything on this yet, what makes you believe it will be the best. Think that is far thinking.

 

[LazyLightnin']

Has the union or company given you guys anything on this yet?

Yes..

 

[sweptback]

Because the company wants this badly. What's in the koolaid that makes us think we are the ones that want PBS the most. Why wouldn’t they negotiate further? That’s what we pay the union to do. In section 6 we can improve the other sections in order to sweeten the deal. This is giving them a new contract without even having to give a bonus check. This LOA totally changes the two largest sections of the contract.

Because, let's face it, the vote is a referendum on PBS. If the result is no, then there is no need to take the PBS exploratory process further.

Let me ask you the same question in a different way. If we get a good PBS system now, and then go into Section 6 with primarily issues pertaining to QOL, pay, and scope, don't you think we'd be in a better negotiating position? Or would you rather spend most of our negotiating capital to get the same PBS system we have now with a few minor tweaks, and not make any large improvements to QOL, pay or scope?

 

[aircombat]

Has the union or company given you guys anything on this yet, what makes you believe it will be the best. Think that is far thinking.

Not really, only small censored blips. I took this quote form another board because it is funny yet sadly true.
“CAR DEALER: I have a great car for you...it's perfect

ME: How many horsepower? What type of transmission?

DEALER: It's got some cylinders and a few gears but it's perfect for you!

ME: How many doors?

DEALER: It's got some, can't say for sure though....but it's great! Should be perfect for you!

ME: How's the ride?

DEALER: Well it hasn't even been driven yet and you won't get to drive it either but its perfect for you!

ME: I don't get to drive it?

DEALER: No, but I'll show it to you from across the parking lot..it's perfect for you! So...what do I have to do to get you in this car today?

ME: Huh????”
Other ASA pilot: Sold

 

[aircombat]

Because, let's face it, the vote is a referendum on PBS. If the result is no, then there is no need to take the PBS exploratory process further.

Let me ask you the same question in a different way. If we get a good PBS system now, and then go into Section 6 with primarily issues pertaining to QOL, pay, and scope, don't you think we'd be in a better negotiating position? Or would you rather spend most of our negotiating capital to get the same PBS system we have now with a few minor tweaks, and not make any large improvements to QOL, pay or scope?

I don’t know how many times I have to say this but, No we will not be “in a better negotiating position” if we give away our only leverage. I admit I don’t know everything about contract negotiations, and the union officials will try to intimidate by saying “you don’t understand section 6 negotiations” but I’m not convinced that if the company wants this badly we can’t use it as leverage. I don’t think it would be an awful thing if PBS disappeared but that is not going to happen. Management has wanted it for years. They are not going to just give up but we can at least sweeten the deal by getting a quick section 6 this time. Again if we give this to them we are setting ourselves up for years of contract negotiations and shrinking to profitability.

 

[Tarzan]

I don’t know how many times I have to say this but, No we will not be “in a better negotiating position” if we give away our only leverage.

There isn't that much money in this gig for the company. Some guys seem to think there will be tens of millions saved. Sorry but it ain't happening. There isn't as much leverage there as you seem to believe. The reason why we see this as more leverage now is because the union has NO legal compunction to bring this to a vote or even negotiate in good faith. If the company wanted a vote, they had to give and give they did. Under Sec 6, there has to be a GOOD FAITH effort made and a vote will be held eventually. I don't know how to make it any clearer for you. Now, we don't have to do a dang thing. Then, we are required to. You dig?

 

[GeekMaster]

I don’t know how many times I have to say this but, No we will not be “in a better negotiating position” if we give away our only leverage. I admit I don’t know everything about contract negotiations, and the union officials will try to intimidate by saying “you don’t understand section 6 negotiations” but I’m not convinced that if the company wants this badly we can’t use it as leverage. I don’t think it would be an awful thing if PBS disappeared but that is not going to happen. Management has wanted it for years. They are not going to just give up but we can at least sweeten the deal by getting a quick section 6 this time. Again if we give this to them we are setting ourselves up for years of contract negotiations and shrinking to profitability.

I understand the point you are trying to argue; truly I do. What many on this board are trying to rightfully point out is that it's an extremely flawed argument. If I understand you correctly, you have already acknowledged that this LOA may very well be a good one. You further argue that we should reject it no matter whether it's the best in the industry or not so that we can hold it for ransom in the upcoming section 6. Is that correct?

Ok, here are the primary reasons that argument is flawed.

1. The agreement itself contains an accelerated timetable for negotiations with leverage PRE-BUILT in. If an agreement isn't reached in a given period of time BOTH MUST APPLY FOR MEDIATION. No stalling.

2. If this is rejected, it is thrown completely out the window when section 6 starts in May. There WILL BE NO MEDIATOR for as long as they can possibly get their high dollar lawyers to stall.

3. Since we've kicked them in the twins and given them the finger over their industry leading PBS offer and basically told them we don't want to be a part of their long term strategy, they can once again start transferring up to 5 aircraft per year without violating the contract. Yes I said again, they transferred some 700's back during the last negotiations.

I don't like using fear as a reason to vote for something, I'm simply pointing a likely scenario as the price for rejecting what is A GOOD AGREEMENT. I will totally stand united with my brothers against acceptance of a substandard agreement and if the pilot group rejects this agreement, I will still stand with them even though I disagree. BUT TO REJECT A GOOD AGREEMENT THAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF ALL PARTIES FOR NO OTHER REASON BUT TO HOLD IT AS HOSTAGE AND DEMAND RANSOM FOR IT LATER IS JUST PLAIN STUPID.

 

[aircombat]

I understand the point you are trying to argue; truly I do. What many on this board are trying to rightfully point out is that it's an extremely flawed argument. If I understand you correctly, you have already acknowledged that this LOA may very well be a good one. You further argue that we should reject it no matter whether it's the best in the industry or not so that we can hold it for ransom in the upcoming section 6. Is that correct?

Ok, here are the primary reasons that argument is flawed.

1. The agreement itself contains an accelerated timetable for negotiations with leverage PRE-BUILT in. If an agreement isn't reached in a given period of time BOTH MUST APPLY FOR MEDIATION. No stalling.

2. If this is rejected, it is thrown completely out the window when section 6 starts in May. There WILL BE NO MEDIATOR for as long as they can possibly get their high dollar lawyers to stall.

3. Since we've kicked them in the twins and given them the finger over their industry leading PBS offer and basically told them we don't want to be a part of their long term strategy, they can once again start transferring up to 5 aircraft per year without violating the contract. Yes I said again, they transferred some 700's back during the last negotiations.

I don't like using fear as a reason to vote for something, I'm simply pointing a likely scenario as the price for rejecting what is A GOOD AGREEMENT. I will totally stand united with my brothers against acceptance of a substandard agreement and if the pilot group rejects this agreement, I will still stand with them even though I disagree. BUT TO REJECT A GOOD AGREEMENT THAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF ALL PARTIES FOR NO OTHER REASON BUT TO HOLD IT AS HOSTAGE AND DEMAND RANSOM FOR IT LATER IS JUST PLAIN STUPID.

1. Timetables, paying for 18 months of negotiations. All smoke and mirrors. PBS will be the only thing to keep them from stalling in section 6.

2. They are not going to want to stall. They want this now not in 5 years. What’s going to keep them from stalling if we lose our only leverage?

3. Don’t you worry we will be transferring aircraft regardless. The no furlough clause is the only thing that has stopped that so far. PBS is only going to allow them to shrink ASA faster. Like I said they can just as easily shrink to profitability as grow.

And to say that PBS will be “in the best interest for all parties” is just an ignorant statement. Try telling that the furloughed. And they don’t even get to vote.

 

[sweptback]

1. Timetables, paying for 18 months of negotiations. All smoke and mirrors. PBS will be the only thing to keep them from stalling in section 6.

How much money will the company spend on the 18 months of contract negotiations? Is the company willing to waste that to stall given the razor-thin profit margins of the industry?

2. They are not going to want to stall. They want this now not in 5 years. What’s going to keep them from stalling if we lose our only leverage?

I disagree that PBS is our "only leverage."

3. Don’t you worry we will be transferring aircraft regardless. The no furlough clause is the only thing that has stopped that so far. PBS is only going to allow them to shrink ASA faster. Like I said they can just as easily shrink to profitability as grow.

They still have to keep the same amount of people on the payroll, due to the no-furlough clause. Plus, name one airline in the history of the industry that has shrunk to profitability. Do you understand what happens when an airline shrinks? Have you ever studied the history of our industry?

And to say that PBS will be “in the best interest for all parties” is just an ignorant statement. Try telling that the furloughed. And they don’t even get to vote.

I find your support for our furlough pilots noble, but why do you seem to value the 156 furloughed over the 1500 active pilots? Are you yourself furloughed?

 

[LazyLightnin']

I find your support for our furlough pilots noble, but why do you seem to value the 156 furloughed over the 1500 active pilots? Are you yourself furloughed?

He's using them as martyrs.

 

[GeekMaster]

He's using them as martyrs.

I think aircombat has made it abundantly clear that he supports killing the LOA NO MATTER HOW GOOD IT MAY BE. None of us will change his mind.

The important thing is he has now totally exposed the sole foundation of his argument. I think ANYBODY who is still giving valid consideration to how they will vote will understand that holding this LOA as ransom for a later gain instead of considering it on its own merit is a STUPID GAME to play with ones career.

Let me make it clear though. For those of you who read the agreement, go to a roadshow, and come to your own conclusion that you can't support it based on what's in it (its own merit), I respect you for that. I disagree with you, but at least you made an informed decision.

 

[aircombat]

they will spend a lot less in 18 months of talks then they will if they have to pay for an improved PBS system, pay raises, and bonuses to all the pilots.

 

[PCL_128]

You guys are obviously wasting your time. You're arguing with a guy that freely admitted a few posts ago that he "knows nothing about contract negotiations," but here he is arguing about contract negotiations. He doesn't understand where leverage comes from, doesn't understand how the mediator looks at things, and doesn't understand how the NMB attempts to resolve cases. Quite simply, he's ignorant, and apparently has no desire to become informed.

Don't waste your time on him.

 

[Speedtape]

AMEN, Brother! He must be Italian!

 

[aircombat]

You guys are obviously wasting your time. You're arguing with a guy that freely admitted a few posts ago that he "knows nothing about contract negotiations," but here he is arguing about contract negotiations. He doesn't understand where leverage comes from, doesn't understand how the mediator looks at things, and doesn't understand how the NMB attempts to resolve cases. Quite simply, he's ignorant, and apparently has no desire to become informed.

Don't waste your time on him.

Good again with the intimidation. It’s worked for you before so why not. I didn’t say I know nothing so that’s a miss quote, however what should I expect from a union guy. Sadly you make it sound like I know more than you.

 

[aircombat]

I think aircombat has made it abundantly clear that he supports killing the LOA NO MATTER HOW GOOD IT MAY BE. None of us will change his mind.

The important thing is he has now totally exposed the sole foundation of his argument. I think ANYBODY who is still giving valid consideration to how they will vote will understand that holding this LOA as ransom for a later gain instead of considering it on its own merit is a STUPID GAME to play with ones career.

Let me make it clear though. For those of you who read the agreement, go to a roadshow, and come to your own conclusion that you can't support it based on what's in it (its own merit), I respect you for that. I disagree with you, but at least you made an informed decision.

I do plan to attend a roadshow however it will be taken with a grain of salt. We are already aware that the union is going to be completely biased on this. If the union wanted to convince me that they are impartial then they need to assign a union official to debate the negative side of this LOA. That won’t happen thou. We have seen this before. All cons will have to be solicited by regular pilots and to think we will be able to find even the majority of the faults in a system that none of us are familiar with is a pipedream. The few faults that are exposed will be downplayed, ignored, or the subject changed by the salesman on the soapbox.

When are we going to be given this LOA? We have trouble understanding some things in the line bidding contracts and PBS is totally new. This sales tactic is going to be filled with flat out lies, half truths, exaggerations, down plays, smoke and mirrors, intimidation, and false promises. People will be hesitant to even speak up if they find a fault because they will become belittled. We have seen that as well. I don’t know how you expect to leave a roadshow with a completely informed, impartial view. Only a handful will even read the LOA so they will be given an injustice by being subject the this one sided rhetoric.

So holding PBS ransom until section 6 is a stupid game? We should just pass the ball to the other side of the court because we are afraid. We have no remorse about voting pilots jobs away but god forbid we use PBS to our advantage in section 6.

 

[aircombat]

They still have to keep the same amount of people on the payroll, due to the no-furlough clause. Plus, name one airline in the history of the industry that has shrunk to profitability. Do you understand what happens when an airline shrinks? Have you ever studied the history of our industry?

Most of the majors have been shrinking to profitability for some time now. PBS requires less pilots so we will save money if we shrink or grow.

I find your support for our furlough pilots noble, but why do you seem to value the 156 furloughed over the 1500 active pilots? Are you yourself furloughed?

As one PBS supporter pointed out earlier. This does not really save the company that much so to think this might end the company is ridiculous. I hope you are not eluding that PBS might favor all 1500 pilots schedule wise because we all know that's not the case. and yes I would take a slightly less flexible schedule in order not to dissolve peoples jobs.

 

[OCP]

Aircombat is not going to go to a road show and "take it with a grain of salt". He has made up his mind and continues to argue like he knows what he is saying even though many others who have actually been in the process continue to shoot his arguments down. Shrinking to profitibility is the stupidest thing in the business world, especially for an airline. (ask ANY business educator why that is bad).
PBS aside and what PBS will or won't do to grow or shrink the company, there are really good improvements that I have seen in the LOA. For anyone who has had to deal with reserve for the past few years there are VAST improvements to that section. Hate red arrow days? The system will improve that. Hate 4 days? There will only be 60% of them AT MOST. ASA has no control at how the days will be constructed. That will be Flightline's computers and your preferences relating to seniority all filtered through this industry leading PBS language.
You want to know the "bad" about the deal. Actually TALK to a union rep who worked on this. They will tell you. They're not trying to hide anything.

 

[aircombat]

Aircombat is not going to go to a road show and "take it with a grain of salt". He has made up his mind and continues to argue like he knows what he is saying even though many others who have actually been in the process continue to shoot his arguments down. Shrinking to profitibility is the stupidest thing in the business world, especially for an airline. (ask ANY business educator why that is bad).
PBS aside and what PBS will or won't do to grow or shrink the company, there are really good improvements that I have seen in the LOA. For anyone who has had to deal with reserve for the past few years there are VAST improvements to that section. Hate red arrow days? The system will improve that. Hate 4 days? There will only be 60% of them AT MOST. ASA has no control at how the days will be constructed. That will be Flightline's computers and your preferences relating to seniority all filtered through this industry leading PBS language.
You want to know the "bad" about the deal. Actually TALK to a union rep who worked on this. They will tell you. They're not trying to hide anything.

I keep having words put in my mouth that I haven’t said. First I never said this isn’t a good PBS system, it might be. I don’t know how you guys have read this LOA, where is it? Secondly I haven’t said that the Union officials are not more experienced at this, I believe they are. Unfortunately they are the same as all of you and are going to look out for number one. I don’t know what their alternative motive is, but from my position it appears that they must get some benefits from having a drawn out section 6 negotiation.

 

[aircombat]

Aircombat is not going to go to a road show and "take it with a grain of salt". He has made up his mind and continues to argue like he knows what he is saying even though many others who have actually been in the process continue to shoot his arguments down. Shrinking to profitibility is the stupidest thing in the business world, especially for an airline. (ask ANY business educator why that is bad).

With a Grain of Salt (definition)

"You should take what you hear and evaluate it on your own, don't take it for being the truth or correct. The phrase is usually used when a person it giving you the 'low down' on what another person has told you. It is a warning that what that person has said, or may say, is not necessarily correct and accurate."

Shrinking to profitability has been the popular buisness model lately. The
recession doesn't help. What do you want them to do grow out of profitability. Are these layoffs just a figment of my imagination?
Less planes, less pilots = fuller planes, more profit.