From another website: see the Bold highlights


Thank you for your SoundOff about the Alaska TA.

Alaska was able to gain some much needed improvements for their pilot group with their TA. They also conceded things for increased scope protection, which makes sense as s smaller carrier concerned about a merger environment. We have a special BOD meeting with our economic and industry analysts scheduled for 28SEP to look at the TA and find places where we may be able to leverage what gains they made.

I know it’s frustrating that the details of our proposals have not been released because we are still in active negotiations. Remember, the pilot group knew nothing of the ALK TA before it was released in their executive summary. We are in that exact same situation, which is that it’s impossible for us to share our table positions if we want to secure the best deal for our pilots. Allow me to say what I can that might help alleviate some of that angst that comes with the unfortunately necessary “information void” period we are in at the end of Section Six.

Our pay proposals at the table are higher than ALK’s, as they should be. They TA'd a large percentage raise because they were already trailing, but when our pay tables are released we will be higher in comparable equipment type.

Our QOWL AIP’s are specifically designed to do what our pilots told us loud and clear was their biggest concern- trip and schedule “ownership”. All of our AIP’s and outstanding proposals are driven by one goal, to keep you on your schedule and honor your days off. Our AIP will pay premium for RA legs and a full day of pay for a reserve into a day off (only permitted twice a month). These AIP’s have the effect of making it more expensive if they change your schedule. We have quantifiable proof from current practice that this will serve to keep pilots on the trip that they were awarded, honor their days off, and get them back to original pairing ASAP, if reassigned. This is better than what ALK got.

ALK now has a 2.5 hard call out for reserve and forced seat-fills in the sim if on reserve, this is a concession. As a LGA Rep, I will never vote for a hard callout time for SCR. With the nature of NY, 2.5 hours is simply impossible. We all know from experience what the VanWyck and Belt can be like and would never set a hard time.

ALK gave up line bidding for PBS, this a a concession. First pilot group I know of to willingly do so. Management gains productivity with PBS over line-bidding. As far as their pilots owning PBS, the details are not released yet but a deep dive shows this to be much the same as our PWG administered by the APA scheduling committee. Our NC has the BOD proposal on percentages for pairing construction. In fact, our NC is meeting with management today on this very issue. The BOD is unanimous in our resolve to have controls in place for pairing construction and distribution. This is a must-have for us and management knows it.

I wasn’t on the BOD when the moniker “targeted approach” was adopted. It is terrible marketing for a great idea. I’m a former negotiator, and I can tell you with certainty that the only thing “targeted” is to get an industry leading TA to the membership in a timely manner. Every section the pilots identified in survey after survey has been addressed. It’s “targeted" to the pilots’ identified goals, but not “limited" to anything. This doesn't mean there is a rush, there is not. Value in the pilots’ pocket now, is more valuable than later, that’s just simple time value money equation. But, if the deal isn’t industry leading we have no problem going to the NMB and seeing this through. We all have to be aware however, (as someone who worked there knows) that if we end up there it will take longer and we would have to get even more to make up for the lost time.

There are no “concessions” in our AIP’s or open proposals. The one place I could possibly classify as a give is electronic notification protocols. But, we have been dealing with this in a nebulous way anyway. Now, it will be codified and we have input into the process with contract language. I do like ALK’s get on “no ACARS use for scheduling purposes”. This is something I’d like to see us build on for openers at DOS +18.

As I hope I’ve illustrated with what little I can reveal in detail, that while ALK made some gains, we are still ahead in both AIP’s and open proposals. Please don’t look at the insulting company offer and assume we as a BOD would accept that, we don’t. It was rejected and we are back at the table, with management knowing it would never be ratifiable by the pilots. I know the information vacuum is maddening and that it gets filled with rumor and falsehoods like “10/5/5”, this is NOT our table position. Our table positions are higher and also include retro, equipment overrides, uncapped snap-ups and a sign-on bonus. I don’t know where we will end on these areas when they are AIP’d but wanted you to understand our asks.

Call me or Scott anytime and we will share with you what we can in further detail. I appreciate your engagement and for flying your contract until we have a TA.

Respectfully,
Larry

 

TA cheerleaders on the BOD are claiming the 10/5/5 was the minimum IF they accepted all other QOL requests.

Dubious at best since we are barely asking to fix anything with QOL…

 

WoW dude.. . our = pilot group

 

I still can't believe how low the APA ask was/is. The company will give in and give everything the APA has asked for and it will still be weak.

 

All of the aircraft the WO’s operate are owned and registered as American Airlines aircraft. AA can take those planes and have anyone they want operate them.

 

Ok… the pilot group didn’t propose 10/5/3. Management did. Double down again?

 

yeah, no duh, but staffing them with pilots is the current issue… hence the conundrum of “can they only make the pilots mainline while all other staff are not”. My answer is no

 

People keep saying its 10/5/3, IT'S NOT! IT'S 0/0/10/5/3!!!!!

 

No. Actually it’s 0/0/0/10/5/3/0/0/0/0/0/0/0.

 

Oh my! Look at all them zeros. I wonder what Isom would do with those?