I am actually quite happy with the proactive engagement of our MEC and administration in ALPA. I wish they ran their committee structure the same way
That being said, there is an emotional element to all of this, and that. Has to be factored into the mix. We are humans, and we act on emotion. I got the chance to read through the agreement in the back of an MD88 last night. There is a lot of good in there. There is also a lot of give back. But, hey, it's negotiating right? I guess you can fall back to that except for that sticky human element of emotion. This contract should have been 99% give back to us, and it isn't. Quite the opposite. It seems to also fall short of where we wanted to be post contract. TO said that we would not sacrifice quality of expediency. We have. I have several more readings to go, but gleaned a few nuggets. Incidentally, I notice that you elect to use 80 hours, and the ensuing percentage as you example of pay increase, when indeed not all months will be an 80 hour guarantee, and those months are able to come with increased productivity to offset the increased pay. That is part of that pesky more give and take than should be necessary after enduring the contract we have been under for 7 years--and that is but one example.
I actually like the advances made in section 1. Again, there is more give on our part than I think is necessary. We are bailing the company out again with regard to RJs, but at least we are reigning it in overall. The JVs have good language there as well. Yet again we see "circumstances beyond the company's control". As T said, the company would likely get it anyway if necessary. The company shouldn't need to staff airplanes with other than Delta pilots in the event of a circumstance for which they. Have no control. Additionally, nobody has mentioned 1b 46, where once again we have snuck in some overweight corporate jets into the "exceptions". So much for that big coup. They break the contract, we catch it, they have to cease. Now it is codified. Human emotion interferes with my proactive engagement function in this manner.
The exceptions for Chautauqua and Shuttle America are troubling as well. There needs to be sunsetting here.
Speaking of DCI, I am not in favor of guaranteeing certain percentages of our classes for DCI pilots. This reeks of "meet and confer" and I don't like it. Big fuss is raised on the alpa boards of not bringing 76 seats to mainline, because they will be flown by pilots not yet hired, yet here we are negotiating for pilots not hired.
Lest anyone be accusatory, I am not for the increase in 76 seat jets. Management created this problem, and they should fix it, but they cannot without our help. I would like to believe that we're it not for the other jabs we receive when we should be receiving mostly return on our investment.
Section 3 is low. End of story. Profit sharing ,needs to stay the same, period.
Section 5. Great job. Hotel for CQ. EXCELLENT. Now all we need is hotel for new hires all the way through training and that section will be complete.
Section 7. Fail. To be sure, the are gains. 5 way split-good. Increase in vacation per day-good. Lack of 6th week, bad. Pay per day of vacation-bad, still. This could have been a great stride without setting off alarms on wall street.
Section 11. Sli pay at 85 hours encourages parking yourself in the boys club. My opinion is that these guys park themselves for QOL and don't need the extra money as well. But I digress.
Section 12. Duty period average. Another great gain that could have been without setting off alarms on wall street. 4:30 doesn't cut it. I will give a B for effort and getting it in there to improve upon, but it doesn't help out all that much. The reason for falling short on this is weak, IMO.
Section 14. Finally, we get rid of something which shouldn't have been there in the first place. Not a big fan of showing preference of one group over another, extra sick pay after your 19th year. Definitely a better section in this agreement.
Section 23. Such a detailed section that I want to attend a roadshow just for this. Most notably what stuck out to me was the LACK of reroute penalties. This company wants to be on time. That's fine. Then pay me for changing the layover I bid when I am running 10 minutes late for "circumstances beyond my control"
Reserve definitely better. No question. However, offsets in productivity nullify some of the benefit.
I reserve further comment and judgement for when I am better educated-especially scheduling, r&i.
Just the first of many read throughs on a 1:40 minute flight.