Originally Posted by
reCALcitrant
It looks like all of the "oh my Gods" are out of the way. Now let's talk turkey. That being said, I'm a 2005 CAL Hire currently on mil leave. I hold 777 FO at EWR. Here's my take.
It's called negotiations. If you take the first offer, you lose. Jeff doesn't expect this to pass. He expects us to return it with a "no" and he'll send the real offer. Please don't fall for "Car Salesman 101" tactics. I'm also realistic. We won't get everything we want. Here is my opinion. Please tell me where I'm wrong.
Vote no.
Tell the reps we want these things fixed in the contract they wrote.
1. Pay rates have to be adjusted to be at least ABOVE the current Delta contract for 2013 and beyond. Not limited to that though.
2. Furloughs from both airlines get full credit for furlough time. This will keep our Pilot group together. It's a divisive line that's important to a small group of guys. Don't let it divide us forever.
3. Scope. I used to be a "hell no" to anything over 50 type of guy.
After a lot of thought, I'm not sure we can keep it if it goes to a arbitrator. Here's why. At CAL, we don't have 50 seat scope. They can fly unlimited 50 seat jets and unlimited larger seat turboprops. UAL lost their scope under bankruptcy. My goal in the long run would be to capture all flying under the UAL brand into our pay rates. Lofty. I don't think that will happen on this contract. I'm willing to stand the line as long as possible, but I think we'll lose this battle.
4. Lump sum is not enough. It needs to be increased by at least 50% on both sides. I'm happy with the percentage allocated to each MEC.
5. We need to adjust the work rules in the reserve section. I bid reserve for a long time when I lived in Houston. I did it because the QOL was great on the 756 on reserve if you lived in domicile. In the contract they have the ability to "double pump" reserves still. I.E. get in at 6 am and depart at 7 pm same night. Some of these rules need to be carefully reviewed again to prevent this kind of B.S. I should also say, I'm not bidding reserve when I get back, so this is not a personal issue for me.
6. The ISL will take care of itself later. Most will stay on their equipment, make more money, and quality of life will be better than today. Nobody should win big or lose big. It's a battle among us though, so tell management to mind there business. Let's not put our garbage in the streets or worry about it until after we've kicked Jeff in the robin's eggs. We're professionals.
I think CAL gains some good work rules, and UAL starts getting some pay back they've lost through years of horrible management. We have a good start to a contract. The MEC did their best. We won't get everything we want. If we can get most of it, we should take it. However, we are not there yet for UAL or CAL.
Send it back with a NO and watch what happens. Remember, it's business for them. It's a little more personal for us as we sit in the pits together for the next 30 years. Vote for each other and yourself with a good balance for both and we'll get this done and still be buds. But either way, NO on the first.
Stick together in the fight. Cheers.
Your opinion.......
While each of us have our own thoughts on whether this TA is "good enough", and if not, what needs to be improved before we would vote yes, I do not necessarily agree with the title of your post. One need look no further than Airtran's deal with SWA to see that it is entirely possible that the first offer is the best offer. Is that the case here? Don't know. Question for the roadshow for sure.
What I DO know is that careful consideration should be given before voting "yes" OR "no". We are taught as pilots to not make major decisions with emotion, or without all the information. Reading the contract, attending a roadshow, and talking to reps/SME's/NC members should be the minimum that each of us commit to before making a final decision.
For example: The issue that I hear most frequently being brought up as the "no" vote trigger is retro. Full retro or "NO" is the battle cry that I've read on here frequently. We are not even at 50% retro at this point, so that should be an easy decision correct? Well... consider this. From what I've read in the Q and A section on the contract website, $400 million is 4x larger than any other retro payout EVER. So what you say? Well, it's not what YOU see as fair. It's about what the NMB says is fair. Are they willing to release us if we demand nothing less than the $1.2 billion we are owed? Again, a question for the roadshow. (I already have gotten an answer from my rep on this). Let's say we fight this battle for another 6 months, and then settle on a new number. How much higher does that number have to be to then make up for the 15-40% payraise that we have NOT been collecting for the past 6 months? What about the 16% B/C fund that we have been losing out on that whole 6 months as well?
I see retro comparisons to AMR who is set to get $100k or so per pilot in equity. That's ridiculous. Apples to oranges. One would have to go back and figure out how much we got in the claim sale plus bond distribution when we went through Ch11 to truly compare how we did.
I'm certainly not saying that this contract is good enough to vote in. It's definitely not a home run. I'd say it's a solid double after reading the contract comparison worksheets. Is that good enough? Can we do better by turning it down? We should each avail ourselves of all the information available and THEN make an informed decision. Just my opinion.