I love the part on section 11 E
Were you can get sh!tcan after 3 cumulative training failure. So if you have 3 bad days over 8 or 9 or 10 years you can be fired at the companies discretion.
I have no training failure but at G4 you never know.

 

Once you pass that no longer makes the previous failure/failures cumulative.

 

Uh, you are thinking of consecutive... cumulative does not have to be 3 in a row, it's 3 total, no matter the order.

 

11E is Withdrawal or Cancelation.

11D is training failures.

I don't know... I think if you end up on the FSP 3 times, you probably belong out of the cockpit anyway.

 

The way I read it once you exit the FSP your "3 strikes clock" is restarted. If you fail a PC in year 1, another in year 5, and finally one in year 10 (to use the original example) those would each be separate events with re-training and re-checking up to 3 failures each time before the co. can decide to let you go.

 

From a former AWA guy who experienced poor contract language in our first contract:

Don't ever vote on the highlights at a roadshow, vote on the actual language. We lost guaranteed days off per month that disappeared somewhere between the roadshows and the contract publication.

Don't ever believe people who say, "this is a great first contract" it's either a great contract or it isn't. Don't vote for a contract if it doesn't meet your needs.

Be sure you have a JIRC (joint implementation resolution committee) that can iron out the flaws that will pop up after the contract is in place. The committee is made up of union people, preferably the negotiators, and management people that can sign off on changes. This is where that gray language gets fixed and having the negotiators there, with their notes from the original negotiating process is so very valuable when it comes time for the "well, what we meant was...." Statements that will come up. You have to have mnagement there that can make the changes without having to call mommy whenever it comes time for a decision. And the union guys have to have autonomy to make the changes as well. This was never an issue for us, we trusted our guys, and they did a decent job with a flawed product. Our second contract they were even better at it.

Don't just look at money. You'll spend it all anyway, look at the actual quality of life stuff that will impact your lifestyle for a very long time. It's worth voting no to tighten language.

Which brings me to my last point - voting no. If you turn down a TA by a close vote then that is actually a good thing. It tells everyone that you are close but the pilot group wants some changes. It's a lot easier to get another TA done if you turn it down by a narrow margin. It gives both sides the knowledge that they really are not that far apart. If you have some poor language that needs to be tightened, or you have some open areas that were not properly addressed then that can be fixed fairly easily. The big problem with a large rejection is that it demonstrates that the two sides are way far apart and the pilot group was completely out of sync with what was negotiated. This is an issue for both sides. The company sees it as a FU message and the union sees it as a complete communication failure. Not good. Something that will result in a total rejection should never make it to a vote.

One last thing. Negotiators always think they did the absolute best they could and they got the absolute best contract available. This is an ownership thing and it can be blinding. Someone has to be able to take that step back and really analyze what the negotiators did, and make fixes if needed. If a negotiator gets butthurt at criticism then that person needs to be removed immediately. They are too close to the product and you won't get any improvements made.

Good luck to you guys, you deserve it. A contract is a very, very good thing compared to at will work rules. Ask me how I know!

 

Thanks. Those are excellent points. I personally feel this needs to be sent back to tighten up the language. I hope as others really dissect the TA they will see the same thing.

 

I'm with you..... As are more than a few I have spoke with, but If it passes (my gut says it will) it will be close. The demographic that I feel is going to vote yes is the 55+ guys who want to grab every dollar before they retire, and the guys who are just looking to cash in while they use AAY for some quick PIC then jump to a legacy. I vote (NO) based on the assumption that I will be here untill retirement, even though I am applying at the legacy airlines and want out regardless of the contract or its outcome.

 

Thanks CactusMike for an excellent post. Great to have posts like that every so often.

 

I also believe it will be a very close vote, ultimately I think it passes, but maybe not by a big margin. Originally I thought it would pass easily now I'm not so sure. By the way does anybody see anything about Short term disability anywhere in there? Also I heard at the meeting in Vegas that the Long Term Disability covers you till you retire, I don't see that anywhere on the contract. Anybody in the know?