Spirit EFB Distance Learning LOA
01-28-2015, 12:29 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 758
Spirit EFB Distance Learning LOA
With the "Spirit of NKS" thread being a general Spirit catchall, it seems prudent to move at least some of the LOA discussion to a separate string.
I'm a NO! Here's why.
The EFB portion of this LOA is a company protection LOA, not a pilot protection LOA. It's as simple as that. Section 26 of our CBA already protects us. It is my opinion that this LOA actually reduces protections rather than increases protections.
When looking at Contract language, one must actually look at the words and punctuation rather than what the words appear to mean. The proposed LOA states: "Pilots are not liable for malfunctioning, or damaged EFB's, or stolen EFB's (provided there is a police report) except in the case of willful misconduct. The Company will not bear the replacement cost of lost devices unless the pilot establishes he has used due diligence in maintaining custody of the device"
Those words only appear to protect the pilot. In truth, they protect the company. Additionally, the wording is poor. Think about it, does "willful misconduct" apply to malfunctions?, to damage?…..a comma follows "malfunctioning" and "damaged", but there is no comma between "stolen" and "except in the case of willful misconduct". Again, I ask, does "willful misconduct" apply to damage and malfunction? I predict a flurry of Arbitrations will be needed to determine what that sentence means.
The "malfunction/damage/stolen" section of the proposed LOA appears to be pilot positive, but it is not; at least it appears that way.
The "lost" section of the proposal doesn't even make a pretense of being a pilot protection. It states right upfront, "The Company will not bear the replacement costs…..". This proposed LOA does NOT protect pilots as it implies it does. sorry.
Spirit is providing iPads/EFB's/tablets because said devices are the cheapest way to put Jeps and manuals in the cockpit. Spirit will make decisions based on cost and the iPad decision is already made, PERIOD. Please don't think that they're going to deny you an iPad just because we don't like this LOA.
Now, I don't necessarily want the company to get screwed by unscrupulous pilots, but I would like my employer to show some good will towards the 99.9% of it's pilot employees. Pilot employees who show up and do our job consistently, competently and cheaply. They hired most of us with the theme, "this is the place to be, this is the best place to be, this is the best place to work, we're friends flying friends"; I'm only asking that the proposed language reflect mutual respect rather than considering us guilty and making us prove our innocence.
For exampl
I'm a NO! Here's why.
The EFB portion of this LOA is a company protection LOA, not a pilot protection LOA. It's as simple as that. Section 26 of our CBA already protects us. It is my opinion that this LOA actually reduces protections rather than increases protections.
When looking at Contract language, one must actually look at the words and punctuation rather than what the words appear to mean. The proposed LOA states: "Pilots are not liable for malfunctioning, or damaged EFB's, or stolen EFB's (provided there is a police report) except in the case of willful misconduct. The Company will not bear the replacement cost of lost devices unless the pilot establishes he has used due diligence in maintaining custody of the device"
Those words only appear to protect the pilot. In truth, they protect the company. Additionally, the wording is poor. Think about it, does "willful misconduct" apply to malfunctions?, to damage?…..a comma follows "malfunctioning" and "damaged", but there is no comma between "stolen" and "except in the case of willful misconduct". Again, I ask, does "willful misconduct" apply to damage and malfunction? I predict a flurry of Arbitrations will be needed to determine what that sentence means.
The "malfunction/damage/stolen" section of the proposed LOA appears to be pilot positive, but it is not; at least it appears that way.
The "lost" section of the proposal doesn't even make a pretense of being a pilot protection. It states right upfront, "The Company will not bear the replacement costs…..". This proposed LOA does NOT protect pilots as it implies it does. sorry.
Spirit is providing iPads/EFB's/tablets because said devices are the cheapest way to put Jeps and manuals in the cockpit. Spirit will make decisions based on cost and the iPad decision is already made, PERIOD. Please don't think that they're going to deny you an iPad just because we don't like this LOA.
Now, I don't necessarily want the company to get screwed by unscrupulous pilots, but I would like my employer to show some good will towards the 99.9% of it's pilot employees. Pilot employees who show up and do our job consistently, competently and cheaply. They hired most of us with the theme, "this is the place to be, this is the best place to be, this is the best place to work, we're friends flying friends"; I'm only asking that the proposed language reflect mutual respect rather than considering us guilty and making us prove our innocence.
For exampl
01-28-2015, 01:31 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 758
Starting again,
With the "Spirit of NKS" thread being a general Spirit catchall, it seems prudent to move at least some of the LOA discussion to a separate string.
I'm a NO! Here's why.
The EFB portion of this LOA is a company protection LOA, not a pilot protection LOA. It's as simple as that. Section 26 of our CBA already protects us. It is my opinion that this LOA actually reduces protections rather than increases protections.
When looking at Contract language, one must actually look at the words and punctuation rather than what the words appear to mean. The proposed LOA states: "Pilots are not liable for malfunctioning, or damaged EFB's, or stolen EFB's (provided there is a police report) except in the case of willful misconduct. The Company will not bear the replacement cost of lost devices unless the pilot establishes he has used due diligence in maintaining custody of the device"
Those words only appear to protect the pilot. In truth, they protect the company. Additionally, the wording is poor. Think about it, does "willful misconduct" apply to malfunctions?, to damage?…..a comma follows "malfunctioning" and "damaged", but there is no comma between "stolen" and "except in the case of willful misconduct". Again, I ask, does "willful misconduct" apply to damage and malfunction? I predict a flurry of Arbitrations will be needed to determine what that sentence means.
The "malfunction/damage/stolen" section of the proposed LOA appears to be pilot positive, but it is not; at least it appears that way.
The "lost" section of the proposal doesn't even make a pretense of being a pilot protection. It states right upfront, "The Company will not bear the replacement costs…..". This proposed LOA does NOT protect pilots as it implies it does. sorry.
Spirit is providing iPads/EFB's/tablets because said devices are the cheapest way to put Jeps and manuals in the cockpit. Spirit will make decisions based on cost and the iPad decision is already made, PERIOD. Please don't think that they're going to deny you an iPad just because we don't like this LOA.
Now, I don't necessarily want the company to get screwed by unscrupulous pilots, but I would like my employer to show some good will towards the 99.9% of it's pilot employees. Pilot employees who show up and do our job consistently, competently and cheaply. They hired most of us with the theme, "this is the place to be, this is the best place to be, this is the best place to work, we're friends flying friends"; I'm only asking that the proposed language reflect mutual respect rather than considering us guilty and making us prove our innocence.
For example, SWA just gives their pilots a stipend to purchase at least an iPad Air with wifi and a certain amount of memory. The pad belongs to the pilot, but the company provides insurance for the pilot. That about covers everything. No need to write language that protects the pilot's privacy, it's HIS/HER pad. Done! The SWA pilots I know, all went to Verizon and bought 132 Gig iPads with wifi and LTE for about the same amount as is the SWA stipend. Everybody's happy and no privacy issues exist.
As for the Distance Learning section, At a glance (because the protection section demands a NO vote regardless) the language is almost acceptable. BUT, the proposed LOA isn't just about recurrent GS. I see a lot of discussion about the ins and outs of RGS, conflicts, pay, etc. But we all need to read this from the perspective that ALL of our training (other than sim time and door/raft drills) will be affected by the distance learning rules. Things that need to be considered include FAR117 and the current contract. I'm not a numbers/detail guy so I'll let the rest of you derive the answer, but I'm pretty sure that there is more to this than the surface suggests. The devil is always in the details.
Finally, as a member who has been asking for our union to make gains when gains are available, I do applaud and do appreciate Spirit ALPA for making its first attempt in 7 years to get a gain outside Section 6. In my opinion, this LOA needs a rewrite, but it can be a gain for us and I'm all for gains.
With the "Spirit of NKS" thread being a general Spirit catchall, it seems prudent to move at least some of the LOA discussion to a separate string.
I'm a NO! Here's why.
The EFB portion of this LOA is a company protection LOA, not a pilot protection LOA. It's as simple as that. Section 26 of our CBA already protects us. It is my opinion that this LOA actually reduces protections rather than increases protections.
When looking at Contract language, one must actually look at the words and punctuation rather than what the words appear to mean. The proposed LOA states: "Pilots are not liable for malfunctioning, or damaged EFB's, or stolen EFB's (provided there is a police report) except in the case of willful misconduct. The Company will not bear the replacement cost of lost devices unless the pilot establishes he has used due diligence in maintaining custody of the device"
Those words only appear to protect the pilot. In truth, they protect the company. Additionally, the wording is poor. Think about it, does "willful misconduct" apply to malfunctions?, to damage?…..a comma follows "malfunctioning" and "damaged", but there is no comma between "stolen" and "except in the case of willful misconduct". Again, I ask, does "willful misconduct" apply to damage and malfunction? I predict a flurry of Arbitrations will be needed to determine what that sentence means.
The "malfunction/damage/stolen" section of the proposed LOA appears to be pilot positive, but it is not; at least it appears that way.
The "lost" section of the proposal doesn't even make a pretense of being a pilot protection. It states right upfront, "The Company will not bear the replacement costs…..". This proposed LOA does NOT protect pilots as it implies it does. sorry.
Spirit is providing iPads/EFB's/tablets because said devices are the cheapest way to put Jeps and manuals in the cockpit. Spirit will make decisions based on cost and the iPad decision is already made, PERIOD. Please don't think that they're going to deny you an iPad just because we don't like this LOA.
Now, I don't necessarily want the company to get screwed by unscrupulous pilots, but I would like my employer to show some good will towards the 99.9% of it's pilot employees. Pilot employees who show up and do our job consistently, competently and cheaply. They hired most of us with the theme, "this is the place to be, this is the best place to be, this is the best place to work, we're friends flying friends"; I'm only asking that the proposed language reflect mutual respect rather than considering us guilty and making us prove our innocence.
For example, SWA just gives their pilots a stipend to purchase at least an iPad Air with wifi and a certain amount of memory. The pad belongs to the pilot, but the company provides insurance for the pilot. That about covers everything. No need to write language that protects the pilot's privacy, it's HIS/HER pad. Done! The SWA pilots I know, all went to Verizon and bought 132 Gig iPads with wifi and LTE for about the same amount as is the SWA stipend. Everybody's happy and no privacy issues exist.
As for the Distance Learning section, At a glance (because the protection section demands a NO vote regardless) the language is almost acceptable. BUT, the proposed LOA isn't just about recurrent GS. I see a lot of discussion about the ins and outs of RGS, conflicts, pay, etc. But we all need to read this from the perspective that ALL of our training (other than sim time and door/raft drills) will be affected by the distance learning rules. Things that need to be considered include FAR117 and the current contract. I'm not a numbers/detail guy so I'll let the rest of you derive the answer, but I'm pretty sure that there is more to this than the surface suggests. The devil is always in the details.
Finally, as a member who has been asking for our union to make gains when gains are available, I do applaud and do appreciate Spirit ALPA for making its first attempt in 7 years to get a gain outside Section 6. In my opinion, this LOA needs a rewrite, but it can be a gain for us and I'm all for gains.
01-28-2015, 08:48 PM
#7
escaped
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 227
The passing of this LOA depends largely on pilot inconvenience.
As a lifetime commuter, I fully understand that.
This possible inconvenience however, does not weigh over issues such as, staffing, compensation, or schedule.
The company is going to save a bundle and is not "sharing the wealth".
2 hrs extra is nothing to study on our own time.
At minimum, counteroffer for bidding for those DL days. Those are work days and should be bid for.
ipads are here to replace charts/manuals, not for our convenience or entertainment.
They are a work tool and should be fully insured by the company.
This LOA is a concession.
As a lifetime commuter, I fully understand that.
This possible inconvenience however, does not weigh over issues such as, staffing, compensation, or schedule.
The company is going to save a bundle and is not "sharing the wealth".
2 hrs extra is nothing to study on our own time.
At minimum, counteroffer for bidding for those DL days. Those are work days and should be bid for.
ipads are here to replace charts/manuals, not for our convenience or entertainment.
They are a work tool and should be fully insured by the company.
This LOA is a concession.
01-29-2015, 10:49 AM
#8
ULTP-Ultra Low Tier Pilot
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,228
Originally Posted by Jett i son
ipads are here to replace charts/manuals, not for our convenience or entertainment.
They are a work tool and should be fully insured by the company.
This LOA is a concession.
01-29-2015, 11:01 AM
#9
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 57
No Vote
Originally Posted by The Juice
The main reason why the company wants this LOA is because pilots will have to do their DL on their off time, not on company time.
144 aircraft by 2021, say 2500 pilots. 2 days of DL not on duty vs 2 days of DL in a crew room, on duty, is 5000 days a year of lost productivity from your workforce where we are not moving planes and someone needs to move those planes.
Say the average pilot works 180 days of duty a year 5000/180= 28 pilots a year. So my math shows they need 28 pilots less a year just on savings for us doing it off the clock. This is a minimum, doesn't account for any conflict drops of any kind.
28 pilots will be 1st year FO pay pilots. Even on guarantee thats a million a year in savings just on wages, not counting healthcare, social security taxes, training, etc.
144 aircraft by 2021, say 2500 pilots. 2 days of DL not on duty vs 2 days of DL in a crew room, on duty, is 5000 days a year of lost productivity from your workforce where we are not moving planes and someone needs to move those planes.
Say the average pilot works 180 days of duty a year 5000/180= 28 pilots a year. So my math shows they need 28 pilots less a year just on savings for us doing it off the clock. This is a minimum, doesn't account for any conflict drops of any kind.
28 pilots will be 1st year FO pay pilots. Even on guarantee thats a million a year in savings just on wages, not counting healthcare, social security taxes, training, etc.
01-29-2015, 11:33 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 758
Originally Posted by Jett i son
The passing of this LOA depends largely on pilot inconvenience.
As a lifetime commuter, I fully understand that.
This possible inconvenience however, does not weigh over issues such as, staffing, compensation, or schedule.
The company is going to save a bundle and is not "sharing the wealth".
2 hrs extra is nothing to study on our own time.
At minimum, counteroffer for bidding for those DL days. Those are work days and should be bid for.
ipads are here to replace charts/manuals, not for our convenience or entertainment.
They are a work tool and should be fully insured by the company.
This LOA is a concession.
As a lifetime commuter, I fully understand that.
This possible inconvenience however, does not weigh over issues such as, staffing, compensation, or schedule.
The company is going to save a bundle and is not "sharing the wealth".
2 hrs extra is nothing to study on our own time.
At minimum, counteroffer for bidding for those DL days. Those are work days and should be bid for.
ipads are here to replace charts/manuals, not for our convenience or entertainment.
They are a work tool and should be fully insured by the company.
This LOA is a concession.
The DL part of this LOA is objectionable to me for the simple reason that it appears to me that I will be losing two guaranteed days off at least one bid period per year, and depending upon the DL concept develops and evolves, likely three bid periods per year and it could affect EVERY bid period. That's too much of a risk for the extra two hour reward.
Let's look at it this way, NK pilots well smarter than I in scheduling matters, believe that this will enable the company to schedule ALL of your training on off days. Personally, I'm not worried about the lost training month income, but I do not want to give up days off.
Now if we had a 6 hour minimum calendar day guarantee, I'd only be working 12 days a month like my SWA buddys and this wouldn't be such an imposition. As it is, with our 4hr day trip min and our 4.5hr duty period guarantee for multi duty period trips, we waste far too much time in the companies service for me to agree to give up days off to DL on their iPad.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Breton
Hangar Talk
1
03-19-2007 02:27 PM
