No comment on ASA PBS LOA yet?

[aircombat]

Are you one of those who likes to argue with yourself? Our contract is one of the best, if not the best in the regional industry--and better than a major or two! This would include pay and work rules--even reserve rules.

Who are we going to use as a model for negotiations to leap-frog? Would we negotiate to price ourselves completely out of jobs? Maybe, this is your first rodeo. Our contract is very rich and puts us at a competitive disadvantage now--should we just push forward to the point that our company becomes no longer economically viable? As the cliche goes, watch what you ask for, you may just get it!

If I’m arguing with myself you must not exist. How much I wish that was true. I’m also sure the major or two that you think we get paid more would like you to list their names so that they can laugh at you.
I know that you guys want to believe that we get paid so much and we are the financial backbone of our airline but that’s just not the case. Fuel cost has surpassed ALL labor costs and pilots are only a small portion of that. I know you are going to say, we don’t pay for fuel, but it is a factored cost. We have been bombarded for years by management that we need to become cheap like Mesa to become successful. Clearly many of you bought into that.
I’ll start worrying about our pay when management starts taking a pay cut. With this LOA it’s just like a brand new contract for management except they don’t even have to pay a bonus check. We are doing this just for the empty promise of growth when it’s going to do the opposite. We are going to shrink until we are more manageable. It happened at other regionals.

 

[aircombat]

So true Speedtape. As I said before, it gets so tiresome to hear these few whiners we have that just can't seem to grasp reality here. Some come around eventually as their experience in this industry grows, and some, will just never get it.

if there are so few then let the furloughees vote on this. The most experienced people in this industry have already nearly ruined it with their selfish plots.

 

[aircombat]

Some of you guys just don't understand how collective bargaining works. Thinking that you'll have more leverage if you turn down PBS now is fantasy. In reality, you'll be shooting yourselves in the foot.

The company will come to the mediator and talk about how every other regional carrier you compete with has PBS, but those mean ASA pilots just refuse to give it to them, hurting their competitive advantage. The mediator will look at the rest of the industry and see that, yes indeed, almost every other regional has PBS already. For the rest of bargaining, the mediator will see things through the prism that the pilot group refused to provide an industry-leading PBS to the company. You look unreasonable. The company looks incredibly reasonable to an outside observer such as the mediator, because they'll show him how they paid for a year of flight pay loss for your PWG, plus agreed to the best PBS LOA in the business, which you turned down. So, the company has curried favor with the guy that writes his reports to the NMB every time you meet to negotiate. Who do you think will be favored in those reports? How much leverage do you really think you'll have when the mediator is telling the NMB that you're unreasonable?

Remember, the only leverage you really have in the end is the threat of a strike. Thinking you have some huge advantage at the table because you've turned down PBS is fantasy, because the mediator and the NMB look at accepted industry standards to determine whether a party is being reasonable or not. Unreasonable parties don't get released, and therefore have zero leverage. The company can continue to stonewall for all eternity, because they know you aren't getting released.

So, how do you really get leverage in bargaining? Accept this industry-leading PBS LOA now, and see what bugs turn up in the system prior to the start of Section 6 bargaining. You can then go into negotiations with a list of errors that you can correct, and you look like the reasonable party that just wants to fix a few loopholes. Half of the battle in negotiations is just getting the number of open items down to as few as possible, because that's when the NMB will release you (your real leverage). When you have 200 open items still on the table, you aren't getting released whether there's an impasse or not.

Again acting like this is going to be a short test period. Tell me how long you REALLY think section 6 will last if we give them PBS now?
I’m not saying tell them no to PBS in section 6. I don’t really care if you guys negotiate the same thing you have now. Just don’t set us up for another 5 years of disappointment.
The threat of a strike didn’t work last time.

 

[Speedtape]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheerios2
wow... you really enjoy that cool-aid..

PBS= farther away from a job for the furloughed

"PBS wont lead to furloughs".. they furloughed then pushed for PBS.. see what they did there?

Look at the facts:

1. Our economy was on a downturn, but the spiral was expedited by the scams in the financial markets and the approval of mortgages to un-credit worthy borrowers that borrowed money on arms and other high risk schemes. The economy faltered, payments went up, and mortgage defaults were bountiful. Loss of jobs followed, and every sector in the economy was impacted--including travel!

2. Delta cut back flying levels at mainline and all DCI carriers.
3. ASA was not insulated and lost thousands of block hours on a yearly basis.
4. Not enough work and too many pilots! Labor supply was greater than demand. Warning: Something has to give!
5. As a result of the above, pilot staffing was reduced by about 157 pilots to better reflect demand and save money.
6. Based on flight hours currently, after the furlough of 157, we are still overstaffed by at least 150-180 pilots based on a historical monthly average of about 84 hours per pilot.
7. We need about an additional 14,000 to 15,000 hours to justify current staffing.
8. Current staffing is contractually protected by the "no furlough" clause, which is an element of the scope clause, thus, we are carrying about 150 pilots, who would otherwise be furloughed.

Summary:
1. They furloughed because they could, contractually, but, more importantly, because block hours decreased drastically, and there were simply too many pilots. It had nothing to do with PBS.

2. Going forward, if PBS was implemented, no furloughs will result because of the contract. All those on seniority list at date of signing are protected.

3. However, as block hours are added through growth, either through economic turnaround or the capturing of flying from other carriers, PBS will allow more work to be done by fewer pilots. PBS eliminates conflicts with preassigments, including integration, and thus INCREASES pilot availability during the month. Also, since more pilots will be assigned regular lines, less reserves will be needed. Why? Because there will be very little open time after the initial bid--nothing compared to today. Nearly all known flying will be assigned in the initial bidding process. Reserve coverage will probably be reduced to estimated daily sick calls plus a small buffer. There will be no need for conversion lines as flight time will be assigned in the initial bid process.

4. At the very least, PBS will delay the call back of furloughees due to new efficiencies. They will only be called back when monthly flying averages increase and approach 84 hours per month on an annual basis for the remaining pilot group. However, even without PBS, going forward, call backs can be delayed with "smart" pairing building and good management of average line credits when building regular lines under the present process. Without PBS, crew planning just has to work harder.

5. Calling back furloughees is more of a function of increased block hours, than anything else. When the demand goes up(increased block hours), the supply of pilots will have to increase at some point. PBS will only prolong the call back to some degree, if it is in place.

6. Most importantly, and a fact to which strong consideration should be given, ASA is probably the only DCI carrier that does not have PBS. WE are at a disadvantage, cost-wise, and also from an optical perspective. Having PBS will not guarantee growth, but not having it, may guarantee no growth when opportunities are presented.

 

[Jack-O-Lantern]

Some of you guys just don't understand how collective bargaining works. Thinking that you'll have more leverage if you turn down PBS now is fantasy. In reality, you'll be shooting yourselves in the foot.

The company will come to the mediator and talk about how every other regional carrier you compete with has PBS, but those mean ASA pilots just refuse to give it to them, hurting their competitive advantage. The mediator will look at the rest of the industry and see that, yes indeed, almost every other regional has PBS already. For the rest of bargaining, the mediator will see things through the prism that the pilot group refused to provide an industry-leading PBS to the company. You look unreasonable. The company looks incredibly reasonable to an outside observer such as the mediator, because they'll show him how they paid for a year of flight pay loss for your PWG, plus agreed to the best PBS LOA in the business, which you turned down. So, the company has curried favor with the guy that writes his reports to the NMB every time you meet to negotiate. Who do you think will be favored in those reports? How much leverage do you really think you'll have when the mediator is telling the NMB that you're unreasonable?

Remember, the only leverage you really have in the end is the threat of a strike. Thinking you have some huge advantage at the table because you've turned down PBS is fantasy, because the mediator and the NMB look at accepted industry standards to determine whether a party is being reasonable or not. Unreasonable parties don't get released, and therefore have zero leverage. The company can continue to stonewall for all eternity, because they know you aren't getting released.

So, how do you really get leverage in bargaining? Accept this industry-leading PBS LOA now, and see what bugs turn up in the system prior to the start of Section 6 bargaining. You can then go into negotiations with a list of errors that you can correct, and you look like the reasonable party that just wants to fix a few loopholes. Half of the battle in negotiations is just getting the number of open items down to as few as possible, because that's when the NMB will release you (your real leverage). When you have 200 open items still on the table, you aren't getting released whether there's an impasse or not.

EXACTLY! Come on guys, try to grasp this.

 

[Speedtape]

Some of you guys just don't understand how collective bargaining works. Thinking that you'll have more leverage if you turn down PBS now is fantasy. In reality, you'll be shooting yourselves in the foot.

The company will come to the mediator and talk about how every other regional carrier you compete with has PBS, but those mean ASA pilots just refuse to give it to them, hurting their competitive advantage. The mediator will look at the rest of the industry and see that, yes indeed, almost every other regional has PBS already. For the rest of bargaining, the mediator will see things through the prism that the pilot group refused to provide an industry-leading PBS to the company. You look unreasonable. The company looks incredibly reasonable to an outside observer such as the mediator, because they'll show him how they paid for a year of flight pay loss for your PWG, plus agreed to the best PBS LOA in the business, which you turned down. So, the company has curried favor with the guy that writes his reports to the NMB every time you meet to negotiate. Who do you think will be favored in those reports? How much leverage do you really think you'll have when the mediator is telling the NMB that you're unreasonable?

Remember, the only leverage you really have in the end is the threat of a strike. Thinking you have some huge advantage at the table because you've turned down PBS is fantasy, because the mediator and the NMB look at accepted industry standards to determine whether a party is being reasonable or not. Unreasonable parties don't get released, and therefore have zero leverage. The company can continue to stonewall for all eternity, because they know you aren't getting released.

So, how do you really get leverage in bargaining? Accept this industry-leading PBS LOA now, and see what bugs turn up in the system prior to the start of Section 6 bargaining. You can then go into negotiations with a list of errors that you can correct, and you look like the reasonable party that just wants to fix a few loopholes. Half of the battle in negotiations is just getting the number of open items down to as few as possible, because that's when the NMB will release you (your real leverage). When you have 200 open items still on the table, you aren't getting released whether there's an impasse or not.

Your post hits the nail on the head. And, For the Record, he is not an ASA pilot with a position--one way or the other! He only states the facts and apparently from knowledge, experience, and wisdom.

 

[Jack-O-Lantern]

if there are so few then let the furloughees vote on this. The most experienced people in this industry have already nearly ruined it with their selfish plots.

Yea! Let the few of these who are the least experienced in our industry vote on our future.
For F$%K sake!
Oh, and please tell us all how we've plotted to ruin our industry!

 

[JoeMerchant]

Some of you guys just don't understand how collective bargaining works. Thinking that you'll have more leverage if you turn down PBS now is fantasy. In reality, you'll be shooting yourselves in the foot.

The company will come to the mediator and talk about how every other regional carrier you compete with has PBS, but those mean ASA pilots just refuse to give it to them, hurting their competitive advantage. The mediator will look at the rest of the industry and see that, yes indeed, almost every other regional has PBS already. For the rest of bargaining, the mediator will see things through the prism that the pilot group refused to provide an industry-leading PBS to the company. You look unreasonable. The company looks incredibly reasonable to an outside observer such as the mediator, because they'll show him how they paid for a year of flight pay loss for your PWG, plus agreed to the best PBS LOA in the business, which you turned down. So, the company has curried favor with the guy that writes his reports to the NMB every time you meet to negotiate. Who do you think will be favored in those reports? How much leverage do you really think you'll have when the mediator is telling the NMB that you're unreasonable?

Remember, the only leverage you really have in the end is the threat of a strike. Thinking you have some huge advantage at the table because you've turned down PBS is fantasy, because the mediator and the NMB look at accepted industry standards to determine whether a party is being reasonable or not. Unreasonable parties don't get released, and therefore have zero leverage. The company can continue to stonewall for all eternity, because they know you aren't getting released.

So, how do you really get leverage in bargaining? Accept this industry-leading PBS LOA now, and see what bugs turn up in the system prior to the start of Section 6 bargaining. You can then go into negotiations with a list of errors that you can correct, and you look like the reasonable party that just wants to fix a few loopholes. Half of the battle in negotiations is just getting the number of open items down to as few as possible, because that's when the NMB will release you (your real leverage). When you have 200 open items still on the table, you aren't getting released whether there's an impasse or not.

As much as it pains me to say this...PCL_128 is correct in his analysis...

For those of you who are "hard line" types...So is PCL_128....Don't make an emotional decision, make an INFORMED decision.....

 

[aircombat]

Still not answering my question. Why can't we shrink to profitability through attrition?

 

[PCL_128]

Again acting like this is going to be a short test period. Tell me how long you REALLY think section 6 will last if we give them PBS now?

Section 6 will be shorter if you give them PBS now, because there will be fewer open items on the bargaining table. The Obama NMB has been very clear that they have no problem releasing employee groups to strike, but they won't do it if you're bickering over 100 open items. They want the list of open items down to 30, maybe 40. That means you can't have an entire PBS section on the table and expect to ever get released. You need to have just a handful of PBS issues to close a few loopholes. Getting PBS now gives you more leverage!

I’m not saying tell them no to PBS in section 6. I don’t really care if you guys negotiate the same thing you have now.

They probably won't be able to negotiate the same thing you've got available to you now, because you will have less leverage. They will have 200 open issues to deal with because of all the other items in the contract that will need to be tweaked, so they'll have to trade some PBS gains to fix some other things. You'll end up with a worse PBS section.

The threat of a strike didn’t work last time.

The threat of a strike didn't exist last time. The NMB under the previous administration made it very clear that they weren't releasing anyone, so you had no leverage. The new NMB has made it very clear that they will release pilot groups, you just have to play the game right. Turning down PBS now and trying to get something better in Section 6 is not playing the game right.

As much as it pains me to say this...PCL_128 is correct in his analysis...

You and I may disagree about a great many things, but both of us have had to deal with mediators and the NMB during Section 6. We know how the game is played. Unfortunately, the average line pilot doesn't, and they don't listen to the people who do. This is what destroys bargaining leverage more than anything.

You've got to play the game, people. Play it smart.

 

[Jack-O-Lantern]

Still not answering my question. Why can't we shrink to profitability through attrition?

Are you kidding? Do you know what attrition is? There is nobody retiring or moving on to greener pastures.
You tell us!
Also,attrition through PBS is yet to be seen or known.

 

[aircombat]

Yea! Let the few of these who are the least experienced in our industry vote on our future.
For F$%K sake!
Oh, and please tell us all how we've plotted to ruin our industry!

I have a few examples how the experienced pilots ruined our profession such as relaxing scope, voting for age 65. The experienced have nothing to lose to throw generations of junior guys under the bus. The young guys have everything to lose. You are no different by saying things like “PBS will only prolong the call back to some degree”. Nice downplay.

 

[GeekMaster]

Aircombat,

No one on this board is going to change your mind. You've already decided and closed your mind to any further debate. The primary reason so many on here are "arguing" with you is for the benefit of those who read your posts that are a little closer to the edge and still willing to consider the facts before they vote. So, this post isn't for you so much as for THEM.

The big picture:

Skywest Inc IS working on a bigger long range plan. They "want" the plan to involve ASA because it is an asset they already own. However, they will enact their plan "TO WORK" with or without us. There plan involves a belief that not all of the current players will be in the game in the near future. Whether Mesa finally dies or Republic gets out of the regional business or whoever isn't that important. What IS important is they're convinced that some of the players will be missing. Therefore, they are posturing themselves to be the go to carrier for providing the lift. Most of us agree there won't be any Regional "growth", so growth for Skywest must come in the form of transferred business.

Now that we've got the big picture, let's look at all the pretty colors:

Skywest can function better with multiple certificates. It's already been established that they often have to deal with "no compete" clauses. So, it would benefit them immensely to include us in their plans. While they may "wish" we weren't Unionized, they don't hate us. But in order for us to fit into their plans, we have to be more efficient and cost effective. Right now we simply are not. Wait it out you say? IF WE WAIT IT OUT, THIS TRAIN WILL LEAVE WITHOUT US. Plain and simple.

Now to the forefront; the issue at hand:

THIS PBS LETTER IS A GOOD LETTER. In fact, it is by far the best PBS letter in the entire airline industry. So here's your challenge. There are many carriers using PBS. NAME ONE that got a better PBS agreement or has a better PBS system. Accepting it NOW will give our parent company a true incentive to include us more fairly in their plans. YES, THEY MUST GROW US TO SAVE ANY MONEY WITH THE PBS SYSTEM. That is a mathematical fact and not a prediction. If you need a scientific/mathematical explanation, I will be happy to give it in a separate post.

If we reject this PBS letter now, WE WILL HAVE LESS LEVERAGE in section 6. Not just a little less.....A LOT LESS !!!! For starters, Inc will show up with AOS or whatever the system they're using at Skywest Airlines and tell the mediator their side of the story. They will point out how they are trying very hard to compete and how that system is already owned and how well that pilot group is doing. They will further point out how high our costs are and how inefficient our bidding system is and that we are now in a minority. Now, guess what!! To the mediator, who isn't partial to pilot groups, it's going to sound like a reasonable argument.

So there are two choices:
1. Accept this agreement.....because of its own merit and its good....and try to work with our parent company and be reasonable with them and encourage them to make us a part of the big picture.

2. Reject this agreement and go back into to the same old spit in your face relationship we are accustomed to from our past management teams....and take at chance of "forcing" ourselves on them (kind of sounds like rape) and see how that works out.

This isn't about SH. He's just a pawn and has absolutely NO SAY in any decisions related to ASA's fate. I don't like him either and see him as incompetent. THIS IS about SKYWEST INC and their business plan.

If we keep doing what we're doing, we'll keep gettin' what we're gettin".

 

[aircombat]

Are you kidding? Do you know what attrition is? There is nobody retiring or moving on to greener pastures.
You tell us!
Also,attrition through PBS is yet to be seen or known.

you guys really only look ahead a few inches don't you? THIS IS GOING TO LAST FOR MANY MANY YEARS!!!
Also, stop saying that the company will not save a dime without growth because that is a lie.

 

[Jack-O-Lantern]

Wow! With all these people who get the big picture here,aircombat, why can't you and a very select few comprehend this?
Perhaps one day this reality check will lunge itself into you narrow minded head!

 

[aircombat]

I’m not saying this in not a good PBS system. It probably is a very good PBS. I’m just saying there is no growth right now so take it to section 6 in hopes to get a quick agreement with slight improvements in the language and maybe a bonus check. Or we can gruel it out for many years because the company has no motivation to sign.
They are not going to scrap everything negotiated just because it goes to section 6.

 

[aircombat]

Wow! With all these people who get the big picture here,aircombat, why can't you and a very select few comprehend this?
Perhaps one day this reality check will lunge itself into you narrow minded head!

there is more than just a few. maybe not on FI because they are smart enough to not pay to listen to you good old boys.

 

[GeekMaster]

As for leverage in Section 6. THERE WILL BE LEVERAGE IN SECTION 6. Just as Inc. needs to settle up this PBS issue as early as possible, they also need to close up all their labor cost issues for the next several years in order to fully pursue their goals. They've EVEN AGREED TO AN ACCELERATED TIMETABLE as part of this PBS. You don't think they're motivated? Look at our last contract when the goal for the company was to drag it out as long as humanly possible. Here they are actually agreeing to start negotiations a year early and file jointly for mediation if things don't get finished by a set date.

Aside from needing their labor issues settled, there are other points of leverage we will have that aren't really prudent to discuss in an open forum such as this one "right now".

 

[PCL_128]

They are not going to scrap everything negotiated just because it goes to section 6.

Actually, that's exactly what they'll do. It's what I would do if I was in their position, because it's how they gain the maximum leverage and hold up the Section 6 process indefinitely without incurring any wrath from the NMB.

You really need to listen to the people that have dealt with Section 6 and the NMB rather than dreaming up your own theories.

 

[aircombat]

As for leverage in Section 6. THERE WILL BE LEVERAGE IN SECTION 6. Just as Inc. needs to settle up this PBS issue as early as possible, they also need to close up all their labor cost issues for the next several years in order to fully pursue their goals. They've EVEN AGREED TO AN ACCELERATED TIMETABLE as part of this PBS. You don't think they're motivated? Look at our last contract when the goal for the company was to drag it out as long as humanly possible. Here they are actually agreeing to start negotiations a year early and file jointly for mediation if things don't get finished by a set date.

Aside from needing their labor issues settled, there are other points of leverage we will have that aren't really prudent to discuss in an open forum such as this one "right now".

There is definitely no shortage of smoke an mirrors in this. Unfortunately it works. A timetable is as solid as the promise for growth. And paying for the first 18 months of negotiations is nothing.
I hope that I am wrong I really do. Nothing would make me happier then for you guys to say I told you so. Sadly I think that I will be doing the finger pointing after years of negotiations and stagnation.