Continental
Farting on your Jumpseat
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2007
- Posts
- 180
(1 of 2)
I. WHY WE DO NOT SUPPORT THIS TA- A SECTION BY SECTION OPINION
SECTION 1- SCOPE
While the language that guides our scope restrictions has been tightened up, the fact that we are moving from 50-seat to 76-seat aircraft with respect to Express Flying carries a huge price tag and moves us further away from our goal of limiting not just the quantity of outsourced flying, but the quality of outsourced flying as well. One of the most consistent expectations we saw from previous polling data of our pilots was to “hold the line” with respect to outsourced flying. This TA does not accomplish that.
Even though there is a hard cap on the number of “regional” aircraft, these new generations of airplanes are no longer merely “feeder” aircraft that provide traffic from smaller outstations to hubs as they were intended to do. They now have the capability of operating segments that are longer than three hours, provide mainline passenger comfort, and first class seating.
It's important to note that while there is a formula that limits the number of 76-seat aircraft (1-C-1-g), this TA still allows the company to operate up to 153 76-seaters at 120% of our mainline single-aisle block hours, should the company elect to not exercise its right to increase 76-seaters. In other words, while most of us look at the grand total (“what's the limit?”), there's no proof that they intend to reach that limit, and if they don't, there's no requirement for them to reduce the block hour ratio.
SECTION 2- DEFINITIONS
This section is fairly straight-forward, however, we are concerned that the plethora of conditional statements- you know- those “if’s”, “and’s”, or “but’s” that the company has used in their favor in the past- still exist throught the TA. We would like to have seen more definitive language.
SECTION 3- COMPENSATION
The most glaring failure of this section is that we trail behind DAL by a year in pay rates. While excuses abound, there is no justification for this. And even though we theoretically exceed them after their amendable date (assuming they don't complete a new TA as quickly as they recently did), we will potentially never catch up to them when you factor in the time value of money.
We also failed to achieve one of our commitments to the pilot group, which was demanding 100% retroactive pay. This is a huge loss for our pilots who have suffered under a contract that thus far has been in effect for twice as long as it was supposed to last. We have been working longer under a contract beyond its amendable date (approaching four full years) than we have worked while it was in force (three years and eight months). This also removes any precedent for expedited negotiations in the future.
SECTION 4- EXPENSES
A little “nit-picking” here, but without a definition of “breakfast” or “meal”, we can only imagine which flavor of cereal we are going to end up with as our “breakfast” or how nutritious that bagel dog “meal” will be.
Secondly, there are a couple of omissions from our current contract. Particularly in light of the impending uniform change, this TA removes the inclusion of “five uniform shirts/blouses” that was included in the uniform allotment in Contract '02. Reimbursement for passport and visa fees is also missing- unless you are required to show up in person, in which case you receive an hour of pay for your time- but nothing for the fees themselves.
SECTION 5- HOURS OF SERVICE
Fair is fair, and this is one area where we can actually note some improvements (of course, they are all relative- based on our prior concessionary contract). Full credit towards line construction for things such as vacation, training, and deadhead is one of the few bright spots in this TA.
Section 5-C (Deadhead) is one area where we expected to borrow from the UAL contract, but ended up with something closer to ours. Deadheading pilots should be booked in the highest cabin- regardless of the length of flight. Furthermore, “...at time of booking...” is ripe for manipulation by the company and should be worded more specifically.
Also, while a pilot will receive add pay if required to sit in a middle seat, the process of submitting a pay claim and having to provide evidence (5-C-1-j) places the onus on the pilot rather than the company.
Another practically unbelievable loss in this TA can be found in Section 5-D: Deadhead Deviation. Whereas in our current contract, the pilot simply notifies Scheduling of his intent to “fake deadhead” and is not liable for reassignment unless the company can make direct contact, in this TA, the pilot is on the hook and has to verify he has not been reassigned. This amounts to a free "reminder" to the company and practically a solicitation for reassignment, and if they don't have a reassignment ready to go, the pilot can be told to wait around for up to three hours while they come up with a reassignment! To expand- when the operation falls apart (which happens all too often), Scheduling simply changes a pilot's last leg to a deadhead to keep it legal, then sorts it out later- sometimes days later. By requiring the pilot to check in with Scheduling, they now have the ability to keep him captive (quite literally) until they figure out what to do. This will cost pilots many extra days away from home and essentially treated as reserves. This is a huge loss!
We hate to see the words, “The company may...” because we all know that translates as, “If it benefits the company (to the detriment of the pilot), the company will...” We find this term under 5-E-2-b-(4), where “the company may increase any report time...” Yes, it may count as duty time, but it also counts as time we are at work and not being paid for our work.
Another big point of contention we have with this TA is the reserve system. For starters, still having only 12 days off (in a 30-day month) is still too few. Taking into account that a lineholder (averaging 5 hours of pay per day) will theoretically have at least 14 days off on average (80 hours of credit), our reserves should have the same. Instead, they will be scheduled for more days (18) for less credit (70 hours). To make matters worse, if you are a “global” reserve, you just went from having 4 movable days in our current contract, to having 6 days that are not “holy” and thus subject to assignment. Can you say “concession”?
“M5D.” Learn this term as it is a new buzzword and one of the big gains in this TA. We admit it- we've finally found something that makes us think this is a “mature” contract. So, being the good sports that we are, we'll put one checkmark in the “win” column.
Of course, we are still skeptical. Our company hates to pay us for not working, so we suspect they won't. For those trips that currently credit less than five hours per day (mostly domestic 737 and 757 trips), we foresee Scheduling doing some shuffling. Yes- you will have a more productive schedule (which, again, is a win), but you will earn every penny of it.
SECTION 8- STAFFING
Uh oh. Here we go again- that dreaded staffing formula. We have always been told that if the company actually followed this formula, we would be severely understaffed. Nonetheless, here it is again.
Take a close look. At first it seems like an improvement- going from our current “10% reserve” to either 14% or 12% based on the fleet. That's an improvement, right? Not quite. In our current contract, the “scheduled block hours” is divided by 83:30 (an assumed average per pilot), whereas in this TA, the total block time is divided by 87:00. This means that not only is the assumed average higher, but that amounts to a 5% reduction in pilots. Furthermore, the charter hour divisor is now also 87:00 hours, compared to 65:00 in our current contract. We realize that this change was made to account for the increased credit values, but when it all washes out, it means that we will continue to be severely understaffed, as we have been for years.
SECTION 9- TRAINING
“A lineholder shall self-schedule recurrent ground school training on a day off...” (9-B-4-a). Need we say more?
We do think that travel to and from recurrent training being booked in first class is a nice touch. Now why couldn't that language be included for “operational” deadheads where pilots are actually involved in flying real airplanes with real people in them?
Traditional GSR and ASR CBTs are not considered “distance learning” and therefore completed on your own time, on your own dime.
SECTION 11- VACATION
“Thank you for your 30 years of service. You don't need an extra two days, do you?” We get it- a minor change that only affects a very few pilots, but still have to wonder why they bothered to change this.
SECTION 13- SICK LEAVE
Unfortunately, no real improvements here. Still accumulate 5 hours/month, which is completely inadequate and deters pilots from actually using sick leave when legitimately sick. Hope you aren't sick more than 12 days during the year!
Furthermore, whereas in our current contract, proof of illness was only required for “reasonable cause” or if it occurred in conjunction with a vacation or holiday. In the current TA, “The company may require a doctor's note before paying such sick leave” (13-A-5). The company would never abuse that, now would they?
I. WHY WE DO NOT SUPPORT THIS TA- A SECTION BY SECTION OPINION
SECTION 1- SCOPE
While the language that guides our scope restrictions has been tightened up, the fact that we are moving from 50-seat to 76-seat aircraft with respect to Express Flying carries a huge price tag and moves us further away from our goal of limiting not just the quantity of outsourced flying, but the quality of outsourced flying as well. One of the most consistent expectations we saw from previous polling data of our pilots was to “hold the line” with respect to outsourced flying. This TA does not accomplish that.
Even though there is a hard cap on the number of “regional” aircraft, these new generations of airplanes are no longer merely “feeder” aircraft that provide traffic from smaller outstations to hubs as they were intended to do. They now have the capability of operating segments that are longer than three hours, provide mainline passenger comfort, and first class seating.
It's important to note that while there is a formula that limits the number of 76-seat aircraft (1-C-1-g), this TA still allows the company to operate up to 153 76-seaters at 120% of our mainline single-aisle block hours, should the company elect to not exercise its right to increase 76-seaters. In other words, while most of us look at the grand total (“what's the limit?”), there's no proof that they intend to reach that limit, and if they don't, there's no requirement for them to reduce the block hour ratio.
SECTION 2- DEFINITIONS
This section is fairly straight-forward, however, we are concerned that the plethora of conditional statements- you know- those “if’s”, “and’s”, or “but’s” that the company has used in their favor in the past- still exist throught the TA. We would like to have seen more definitive language.
SECTION 3- COMPENSATION
The most glaring failure of this section is that we trail behind DAL by a year in pay rates. While excuses abound, there is no justification for this. And even though we theoretically exceed them after their amendable date (assuming they don't complete a new TA as quickly as they recently did), we will potentially never catch up to them when you factor in the time value of money.
We also failed to achieve one of our commitments to the pilot group, which was demanding 100% retroactive pay. This is a huge loss for our pilots who have suffered under a contract that thus far has been in effect for twice as long as it was supposed to last. We have been working longer under a contract beyond its amendable date (approaching four full years) than we have worked while it was in force (three years and eight months). This also removes any precedent for expedited negotiations in the future.
SECTION 4- EXPENSES
A little “nit-picking” here, but without a definition of “breakfast” or “meal”, we can only imagine which flavor of cereal we are going to end up with as our “breakfast” or how nutritious that bagel dog “meal” will be.
Secondly, there are a couple of omissions from our current contract. Particularly in light of the impending uniform change, this TA removes the inclusion of “five uniform shirts/blouses” that was included in the uniform allotment in Contract '02. Reimbursement for passport and visa fees is also missing- unless you are required to show up in person, in which case you receive an hour of pay for your time- but nothing for the fees themselves.
SECTION 5- HOURS OF SERVICE
Fair is fair, and this is one area where we can actually note some improvements (of course, they are all relative- based on our prior concessionary contract). Full credit towards line construction for things such as vacation, training, and deadhead is one of the few bright spots in this TA.
Section 5-C (Deadhead) is one area where we expected to borrow from the UAL contract, but ended up with something closer to ours. Deadheading pilots should be booked in the highest cabin- regardless of the length of flight. Furthermore, “...at time of booking...” is ripe for manipulation by the company and should be worded more specifically.
Also, while a pilot will receive add pay if required to sit in a middle seat, the process of submitting a pay claim and having to provide evidence (5-C-1-j) places the onus on the pilot rather than the company.
Another practically unbelievable loss in this TA can be found in Section 5-D: Deadhead Deviation. Whereas in our current contract, the pilot simply notifies Scheduling of his intent to “fake deadhead” and is not liable for reassignment unless the company can make direct contact, in this TA, the pilot is on the hook and has to verify he has not been reassigned. This amounts to a free "reminder" to the company and practically a solicitation for reassignment, and if they don't have a reassignment ready to go, the pilot can be told to wait around for up to three hours while they come up with a reassignment! To expand- when the operation falls apart (which happens all too often), Scheduling simply changes a pilot's last leg to a deadhead to keep it legal, then sorts it out later- sometimes days later. By requiring the pilot to check in with Scheduling, they now have the ability to keep him captive (quite literally) until they figure out what to do. This will cost pilots many extra days away from home and essentially treated as reserves. This is a huge loss!
We hate to see the words, “The company may...” because we all know that translates as, “If it benefits the company (to the detriment of the pilot), the company will...” We find this term under 5-E-2-b-(4), where “the company may increase any report time...” Yes, it may count as duty time, but it also counts as time we are at work and not being paid for our work.
Another big point of contention we have with this TA is the reserve system. For starters, still having only 12 days off (in a 30-day month) is still too few. Taking into account that a lineholder (averaging 5 hours of pay per day) will theoretically have at least 14 days off on average (80 hours of credit), our reserves should have the same. Instead, they will be scheduled for more days (18) for less credit (70 hours). To make matters worse, if you are a “global” reserve, you just went from having 4 movable days in our current contract, to having 6 days that are not “holy” and thus subject to assignment. Can you say “concession”?
“M5D.” Learn this term as it is a new buzzword and one of the big gains in this TA. We admit it- we've finally found something that makes us think this is a “mature” contract. So, being the good sports that we are, we'll put one checkmark in the “win” column.
Of course, we are still skeptical. Our company hates to pay us for not working, so we suspect they won't. For those trips that currently credit less than five hours per day (mostly domestic 737 and 757 trips), we foresee Scheduling doing some shuffling. Yes- you will have a more productive schedule (which, again, is a win), but you will earn every penny of it.
SECTION 8- STAFFING
Uh oh. Here we go again- that dreaded staffing formula. We have always been told that if the company actually followed this formula, we would be severely understaffed. Nonetheless, here it is again.
Take a close look. At first it seems like an improvement- going from our current “10% reserve” to either 14% or 12% based on the fleet. That's an improvement, right? Not quite. In our current contract, the “scheduled block hours” is divided by 83:30 (an assumed average per pilot), whereas in this TA, the total block time is divided by 87:00. This means that not only is the assumed average higher, but that amounts to a 5% reduction in pilots. Furthermore, the charter hour divisor is now also 87:00 hours, compared to 65:00 in our current contract. We realize that this change was made to account for the increased credit values, but when it all washes out, it means that we will continue to be severely understaffed, as we have been for years.
SECTION 9- TRAINING
“A lineholder shall self-schedule recurrent ground school training on a day off...” (9-B-4-a). Need we say more?
We do think that travel to and from recurrent training being booked in first class is a nice touch. Now why couldn't that language be included for “operational” deadheads where pilots are actually involved in flying real airplanes with real people in them?
Traditional GSR and ASR CBTs are not considered “distance learning” and therefore completed on your own time, on your own dime.
SECTION 11- VACATION
“Thank you for your 30 years of service. You don't need an extra two days, do you?” We get it- a minor change that only affects a very few pilots, but still have to wonder why they bothered to change this.
SECTION 13- SICK LEAVE
Unfortunately, no real improvements here. Still accumulate 5 hours/month, which is completely inadequate and deters pilots from actually using sick leave when legitimately sick. Hope you aren't sick more than 12 days during the year!
Furthermore, whereas in our current contract, proof of illness was only required for “reasonable cause” or if it occurred in conjunction with a vacation or holiday. In the current TA, “The company may require a doctor's note before paying such sick leave” (13-A-5). The company would never abuse that, now would they?
