Hueypilot

I don't think anyone here at least is advocating voting yes with a blank check and no contract language.

ghilis101

That's true, but I think the yes voter is voting out of fear of whats on the other side of that no vote. Voting out of fear is exact reason not to vote yes. This isn't 2004 or 2007. This is 2015, the year of greatest economic prosperity in the history of the airline industry. Don't you think they know that and hence theyre rushing you into this deal? Each day you move forward in 2015 your eyes are opened more and more into just how much leverage you have.

Scoop

Well it might not quite be industry standard but it is pretty close:

DAL guys had full LOS for all furloughees prior to the merger.
NW guys got full LOS for all furloughees during the merger

UCAL guys don't quite get full LOS but have some formula to give them up to something like 5 years LOS maximum. Perhaps a UCAL can more accurately describe their situation.

I don't think it is necessarily right or wrong to go with full LOS, but it is not that outrageous to ask for it based on industry parity.

Scoop

Hueypilot

I can't speak for other yes voters, but I'm not voting out of fear. I would support a TA like this out of analysis of past and present events, and out of cost/benefit comparisons.

Parker and Kirby have yet to come dragging themselves back to any labor group on their knees in search of something they wanted, particularly when there's already an end-state (cost-neutral arbitration) specified. They never gave an inch when they ran America West. They never gave USAPA anything despite USAPA trying their damnedest to force the company into running one of the most dysfunctional airlines in modern US history. They didn't give in to the APFA after they voted their TA down.

They did give the FAs their money, but only after they manhandled the APFA. At this point, it's about sending a message to the APA BOD that they won't be forced to the table. Kirby is a notorious numbers guy. If you think he hasn't already set a value he's willing to pay to get HBT and combined divisions, I think you underestimate him. Ditto with respect to the fact that I'm certain they already have contingencies set up in case it does go to arbitration and they don't get their requests. They already have a plan to run the airline along the Green Book rules.

Additionally, if they come back to the table now, that won't help them in securing favorable contracts with the other unions. The FAs got the pay, but only on Parker's terms. That's how they operated with US Airways, and that's how they operated with America West. If DFW's theory that they will crawl back to the table over HBT and other requests comes true, that will be a rare exception...and I think some in our union vastly overstate how bad they want those things. They do want those things, but they aren't willing to do anything to get them.

Then there's the basic cost/benefit comparison. No single element of this proposal is enough to sell me on it. It's the total compensation versus what we're giving up. In the end, is it enough? The DAL+3% was borderline. It was enough to barely keep us competitive with Delta pay. The current proposal, plus the LOS and other minor changes, makes it viable (to me...maybe not to you).

My prediction if we vote NO on any future TA?

Best case...we go to arbitration and the arbitrator issues his award. There is no last minute "deal" and we get the MTA. Parker does what he did with the APFA and gives us the pay, and we lose 2 years LOS, the previously agreed to TAs and about 4 months of retro pay.

Worst case: His lawyers pull some skillful legal wrangling and manage to open up aspects of the MTA and they are awarded some of their asks for pennies on the dollar compared to what we were originally offered. We get stuck with the MTA pay and the Green Book as is. Parker, in an effort to send us a "message" as we attempted to send him, decides not to give us the previous proposed pay.

Either way, you and I won't go broke. Life won't end as we know it. But looking at it from my point of view, if we vote no just to send a message and in some hope of getting PK to change their habits, I think we're just p*ssing money away. That's my take.

Sliceback

Group II FO pay increases $45/hr over 11 years(2-12). $4000/yr.
Group III FO pay increases $48 over 11 years. $4400/yr.
Group IV FO pay increases $55 over 11 years. $5000/yr.

Monthly it's $330-$420. Times two months = $660-820. Times 11 years is $7000-9000.

That's my public math guess. I'm not sure how you came up with "over $100K".

PurpleTurtle

The APA bylaws and policy require the BOD to have final contract language for seven (7) days before a vote to reject or to approve. And then membership is required to have it for fourteen (14) days..

Why are most of the officers rushing and ignoring the guidance learned from past cram jobs based on speed and management slight of hand?

Slow down. Quit punching buttons and yanking handles.

Read the QRH. Follow the QRH. Don't end in a smoking hole. Land safely.

PRS Guitars

You're right...

I did a quick mental calculation but based it mostly on the large pay raise between year 1 and 2 and the upcoming 2016 MTA raise and wasn't really considering the much lessor raises in all other years. $10k to 20k or so would be more accurate.

Though for a new hire jumping from $40 to $86 assuming an 85 hour month and a two month delay it'd be $7800, pretty painful coming off a year of austerity in the home budget.

Hueypilot

If you're just coming off the year in austerity, I think the second year AB pay rates that were published were around $112/hour. $75/hour if I remember correctly for 2015 first year pay. $40 per hour versus $112 an hour. Not minor.

PRS Guitars

Yeah, I was just sticking with MTA rates, but if the offer passes, a two month delay in second year rates would cost a new hire $12,240. Again, hopefully this gets fixed for LAA new hires.

Hueypilot

Ah, ok. I see where you were going. I wish first year pay would get fixed too. But as one guy told me, "why would we care about people who aren't even on property yet?"

Just so long as we're all worried about the junior pilot in this whole fiasco. We can at least tell our future junior pilots that "We cared about you. Except we didn't care about first year pay, because you weren't here yet".