Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




Pages : [1] 2

View Full Version : Avg Calendar Day, LOS approved


aa73
12-21-2017, 10:40 AM
Effective 8/31/18

*****Fellow Pilots,

After a series of expedited discussions, we are pleased to announce that the company and APA have reached an agreement regarding the following items:

An increase in minimum pay and credit while on duty from Duty Day to Calendar Day
Length of Service (LOS) restoration for pilots furloughed after 9/11
Resolution of a number of disputes and grievances relating to the filling of open time and a mutual path forward toward DOTC/RAS
The agreement is subject to approval by the APA Board of Directors and will be considered in the coming days. We know that you will likely have questions after reviewing the summary available here and we will be providing additional details soon.

Thank you for what you do every day as we work together to ensure our passengers have a safe and reliable travel experience on our airline. We wish you and your families all the best.


mainlineAF
12-21-2017, 10:44 AM
Hopefully this makes for a big vacancy bid this summer[emoji851]

ctab5060X
12-21-2017, 11:21 AM
The Devil is in the details:

LOS retroactive to June 1, 2017...

Avg Calendar Day effective August 31,2018...


UPTme
12-21-2017, 12:11 PM
Summer flying is already programmed. I don't consider it unreasonable that the company would want to implement this later in the year.

I'm more concerned what (if anything) we gave up. Hopefully the CLT blast was not true

We will see.

FLPS30GRDWN
12-21-2017, 12:11 PM
Still has to be voted in by BOD


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EMBFlyer
12-21-2017, 01:34 PM
Still has to be voted in by BOD


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Therein lies the rub. Never underestimate the BOD's ability to completely F this up!

Thedude
12-21-2017, 03:02 PM
Summer flying is already programmed. I don't consider it unreasonable that the company would want to implement this later in the year.
.

But yet they blame marketing on not being able to get us bidding on skeds sooner than 2 weeks out.

sumwherelse
12-21-2017, 03:21 PM
Therein lies the rub. Never underestimate the BOD's ability to completely F this up!

F what up???? This whole thing is a joke and is already f’d up! I wouldn’t mind at all if they said shove it.

Cue the it’s more than we had idiots—

Al Czervik
12-21-2017, 03:42 PM
I’d wait to see what APA gave for all of this.

PRS Guitars
12-21-2017, 08:32 PM
I’d wait to see what APA gave for all of this.

Yes, I’m concerned about the last bullet:

“Resolution of a number of disputes and grievances relating to the filling of open time and a mutual path forward toward DOTC/RAS”

Saabs
12-21-2017, 08:34 PM
F what up???? This whole thing is a joke and is already f’d up! I wouldn’t mind at all if they said shove it.

Cue the it’s more than we had idiots—
Cite the specific reasons. What did we give up? Be super specific because it’s better than we had. Granted maybe they gave up too much, which is why you need to be very specific on the details but.....

Call me an idiot.

AFTrainerGuy
12-21-2017, 09:20 PM
Cite the specific reasons. What did we give up? Be super specific because it’s better than we had. Granted maybe they gave up too much, which is why you need to be very specific on the details but.....

Call me an idiot.

Gotta agree... cautiously optimistic. I’m hoping the CLT blast changed the underlying “gives”. I’d like to see fine print but just dismissing it outright seems a bit foolish. Apparently no rush to pass. The BOD has time to actually read and debate the details since MCD is 9 months away and LOS is retro to last summer.

I don’t think this is one of those bills we need to “pass to see what’s in it”

cactusmike
12-21-2017, 09:43 PM
Not real happy about the 9 month free pass to the company. If they really wanted to implement this it could have been done by doing pay/no credit until the training and IT issues were resolved.

I understand that this may cause a staffing shortage of about 150 pilots needed to fly the extra hours imposed by the new rig. By keeping the present hours and paying us the difference via PNC the company could stay on the timetable announced for full,implementation yet compensate us for the woeful contract we are under. I understand why were are here, I’d just like to see us move past as quickly as possible.

FLPS30GRDWN
12-22-2017, 03:37 AM
Not real happy about the 9 month free pass to the company. If they really wanted to implement this it could have been done by doing pay/no credit until the training and IT issues were resolved.



I understand that this may cause a staffing shortage of about 150 pilots needed to fly the extra hours imposed by the new rig..


I have my doubts about that. I say it’s more likely a one for one no additional bodies needed. Think about all the trips that they won’t need reserves for anymore... this makes it worth leaving the house.

Time will tell

R57 relay
12-22-2017, 04:07 AM
Not real happy about the 9 month free pass to the company. If they really wanted to implement this it could have been done by doing pay/no credit until the training and IT issues were resolved.

I understand that this may cause a staffing shortage of about 150 pilots needed to fly the extra hours imposed by the new rig. By keeping the present hours and paying us the difference via PNC the company could stay on the timetable announced for full,implementation yet compensate us for the woeful contract we are under. I understand why were are here, I’d just like to see us move past as quickly as possible.

I doubt this will require more bodies after the optimizer gets done. They probably need the time to qualify East Coast bases for Hawaii.

Frip
12-22-2017, 04:20 AM
And run the displacements out of LAX/PHX to the bases where the Hawaii flying is going to wind up...

R57 relay
12-22-2017, 04:28 AM
CLT-LAX-HNL-LAX-CLT or PHL-PHX-HNL-PHX-PHL...mighty efficient.

SilverandSore
12-22-2017, 05:05 AM
F what up???? This whole thing is a joke and is already f’d up! I wouldn’t mind at all if they said shove it.

Cue the it’s more than we had idiots—

Or cue the folks that take this as having to use less negotiating capital to get it in the next contract thus freeing up capital to work on further improvements to things we now have, those idiots? Hmmm, profit sharing, 8% bump and avg day credit in the last year, I’d say we’ve done better than expected. Given that APA agreed to this huge pile of sh!t with a cost neutral arbitration as a back stop, we’ve done pretty well.

mainlineAF
12-22-2017, 05:53 AM
Cite the specific reasons. What did we give up? Be super specific because it’s better than we had. Granted maybe they gave up too much, which is why you need to be very specific on the details but.....



Call me an idiot.



Idiot...[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

Mover
12-22-2017, 06:39 AM
Or cue the folks that take this as having to use less negotiating capital to get it in the next contract thus freeing up capital to work on further improvements to things we now have, those idiots? Hmmm, profit sharing, 8% bump and avg day credit in the last year, I’d say we’ve done better than expected. Given that APA agreed to this huge pile of sh!t with a cost neutral arbitration as a back stop, we’ve done pretty well.

We're going to have to use negotiating capital to fix this because AVG calendar day and a concession for electronic notification isn't what we want.

Laker24
12-22-2017, 07:16 AM
Mover

Would you rather stick with what we had? 3 day 11 hour trips. You do realize we are not in section 6? I think APA has done a hell of a good job making meaningful gains outside of section 6. Point to any other airline who has done as much outside of negotiations.

The LOS deal is going to require additional manpower. Lots of pilots are going to get an extra week or so of vacation starting in 2019.

Mover
12-22-2017, 07:41 AM
Mover

Would you rather stick with what we had? 3 day 11 hour trips. You do realize we are not in section 6? I think APA has done a hell of a good job making meaningful gains outside of section 6. Point to any other airline who has done as much outside of negotiations.

The LOS deal is going to require additional manpower. Lots of pilots are going to get an extra week or so of vacation starting in 2019.

If it involves any concessions or IOUs, I'd rather not.

The devil is in the details.

mainlineAF
12-22-2017, 08:40 AM
We're going to have to use negotiating capital to fix this because AVG calendar day and a concession for electronic notification isn't what we want.



What would you rather have besides average calendar day? Of course minimum would be better but there’s no way we would get that.

Mover
12-22-2017, 12:30 PM
What would you rather have besides average calendar day? Of course minimum would be better but there’s no way we would get that.

Why not? That's the kind of attitude that creates a weak and feckless union.

I'd prefer a better F time rig above anything, but a min + F time would be ideal.

mainlineAF
12-22-2017, 12:54 PM
Why not? That's the kind of attitude that creates a weak and feckless union.



I'd prefer a better F time rig above anything, but a min + F time would be ideal.



We won’t get a min day bc we aren’t in section 6 and no one else besides SWA has a true min day. That’s not being weak that’s being realistic.

Didn’t APA test better F time and conclude an average calendar day was better?

aa73
12-22-2017, 03:01 PM
Language is out.

1 for 1.5 duty rig for odarkthirty flying

5+15 Rig implemented by September, unless vacation float is under 30%, then they can delay to january 2019. They will pay 1 million penalty month one and 1.5 million each month after.

Check airman adjusted to maintain 11 minute premium.

LOS resolved, and shall accrue for any future furloughs.

Give up all claims to open time grievances, and all previous are settled at 50%

Overall, a huge win outside of Sec 6 IMHO

cactusmike
12-22-2017, 03:25 PM
CLT-LAX-HNL-LAX-CLT or PHL-PHX-HNL-PHX-PHL...mighty efficient.

Somethings going on with the PHX 767. Bid out today shows 80 captains in PHX as of August 18. When I left there were 65.

I think you would see the routing you posted happen in the non summer months. PHL will be busy with all the new European flying coming in April and May.

Cheddar
12-22-2017, 07:42 PM
Not sure electronic notifications are going to be all that great. We need some serious RA and RO language in section 6.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Monkey Wrench
12-22-2017, 10:11 PM
I’d wait to see what APA gave for all of this.

Company’s initial figure was $30mil. Not included in any of the literature now.

jcountry
12-23-2017, 01:06 AM
Not sure electronic notifications are going to be all that great. We need some serious RA and RO language in section 6.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is important.

All APA has done since I’ve been here is negotiate really ****ty language on everything-and play like it’s all the company’s fault.

Laker24
12-23-2017, 05:15 AM
We just went from the worst rigs amongst major airlines to the best (barring SWA). We got an 8% raise, small profit sharing, duty rigs, and LOS in one year, outside section 6. APA has their flaws but please point to any other pilot group that has made similar gains outside section 6. I know you want Delta everything plus 15% with bullet proof language but we are not in negotiations yet.

If you are still ****ed in 2022 then you have a legitimate complaint.

mainlineAF
12-23-2017, 05:17 AM
We just went from the worst rigs amongst major airlines to the best (barring SWA). We got an 8% raise, small profit sharing, duty rigs, and LOS in one year, outside section 6. APA has their flaws but please point to any other pilot group that has made similar gains outside section 6. I know you want Delta everything plus 15% with bullet proof language but we are not in negotiations yet.



If you are still ****ed in 2022 then you have a legitimate complaint.



Agree 100%. To say APA is weak after the year we’ve had is ludicrous.

If you give a mouse a cookie..

sherpster
12-23-2017, 05:50 AM
Some people are never happy regardless of what you do

Laker24
12-27-2017, 08:43 AM
Looks like it's going to be voted down by the BOD. What an epic fail. I'm not sure what the BOD has in store for plan B. I'm sure they got the memo that their is no longer a holiday scheduling crisis. No float won't surprise the company one year later. So where's our leverage? Looks like we are
back to 3 day trips which pay 11 hours and the worst LOS language in the industry. It seems like such a no brainer to clear items from want list prior to section 6. Surprisingly rumor has it that a rep from LAX and MIA are against this. Two bases with some of the worst slash trips.

cactusmike
12-27-2017, 09:04 AM
The APA, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

One step forward, 3 steps back. This is political posturing by some BOD members that are burr hurt by the success Carey has had. Watch for a move to vote Carey out and one of the BOD run for President. And watch the failures repeat, ad nauseum.

mainlineAF
12-27-2017, 10:29 AM
If this gets voted down we need to do whatever it takes to get alpa on property.

AFTrainerGuy
12-27-2017, 11:01 AM
Looks like it's going to be voted down by the BOD. What an epic fail. I'm not sure what the BOD has in store for plan B. I'm sure they got the memo that their is no longer a holiday scheduling crisis. No float won't surprise the company one year later. So where's our leverage? Looks like we are
back to 3 day trips which pay 11 hours and the worst LOS language in the industry. It seems like such a no brainer to clear items from want list prior to section 6. Surprisingly rumor has it that a rep from LAX and MIA are against this. Two bases with some of the worst slash trips.

Honest ?... where are you getting this from? C&R?

I went over there and they are all against it, but what’s new. There’s like 40 of them that post, and they pretend they represent the masses. Bunch of blowhards with like 30,000+ posts each who are seriously addicted to pontificating online. Almost feel sorry for them.

I’m sure hope it passes too. I sent a soundoff. It’s really all we can do. I also hope our reps take their time to read the “gives” and make a informed decision. I don’t see the rush.

I seriously doubt they can vote this down. I feel it’s more grandstanding like when they weren’t gonna accept profit sharing (really?!?). Between the LOS guys and all of us doing slash trips continually, that a giant beehive to agitate. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt that they can’t be that stupid.

Laker24
12-27-2017, 12:54 PM
If this gets voted down we need to do whatever it takes to get alpa on property.

Agree with you 100%.

The current structure is too political. Reminds me of congress. Vote along party lines instead of what's best for the pilot group.

Laker24
12-27-2017, 12:57 PM
Honest ?... where are you getting this from? C&R?

I went over there and they are all against it, but what’s new. There’s like 40 of them that post, and they pretend they represent the masses. Bunch of blowhards with like 30,000+ posts each who are seriously addicted to pontificating online. Almost feel sorry for them.

I’m sure hope it passes too. I sent a soundoff. It’s really all we can do. I also hope our reps take their time to read the “gives” and make a informed decision. I don’t see the rush.

I seriously doubt they can vote this down. I feel it’s more grandstanding like when they weren’t gonna accept profit sharing (really?!?). Between the LOS guys and all of us doing slash trips continually, that a giant beehive to agitate. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt that they can’t be that stupid.

Apparently from the rumor mill. 1 MIA rep against. 1 LAX rep against. 1 phx rep against. Both DFW against. Both CLT against. The other east bases sound like they might be against the deal. Doesn't look good for furloughees or junior line holders. 20 days on per month indefinitely ...

SilentLurker
12-27-2017, 02:13 PM
I understand that this may cause a staffing shortage of about 150 pilots needed to fly the extra hours imposed by the new rig. By keeping the present hours and paying us the difference via PNC the company could stay on the timetable announced for full,implementation yet compensate us for the woeful contract we are under. I understand why we are here.


Flow pilots from Envoy at 50% contractual rate vs the current metering below contract minimums or the 25/month minimum. When there is a will in Mgmt to get something done there is a way.

Name User
12-27-2017, 07:22 PM
Apparently from the rumor mill. 1 MIA rep against. 1 LAX rep against. 1 phx rep against. Both DFW against. Both CLT against. The other east bases sound like they might be against the deal. Doesn't look good for furloughees or junior line holders. 20 days on per month indefinitely ...


There must be more to the story if they are voting this down.

Laker24
12-27-2017, 09:39 PM
There must be more to the story if they are voting this down.

Yes. Politics. They don't like the fact that Carey went out on his own to make the deal without any BOD input. The positives far outweigh any negatives.

sumwherelse
12-28-2017, 05:05 AM
Yes. Politics. They don't like the fact that Carey went out on his own to make the deal without any BOD input. The positives far outweigh any negatives.

If I were king for a day and on the BOD I would vote in the agreement and then immediately recall CAREY!!! That would be my course of action.

BOGSAT
12-28-2017, 05:17 PM
ALPA? Sometimes change can be good.

dynap09
12-28-2017, 10:11 PM
I don't get the push by the BOD to turn down things like profit sharing and this.

What's the point?

Profit sharing was fine, even if the union BOD couldn't negotiate in whatever bennies they wanted for themselves at the top.

LOS - This is great for those folks off property! I'd have thought it'd end up compromise (% equiv time when off property).

Avg day. Much fairer, some of those trips were BOGUS.

Folks demanding min day outside of contract ... uh? Even if available this BOD would never be able to negotiate for it - they were looking at turning down profit sharing...

The approach here at BOD level is too weird, what's in it for them?

Al Czervik
12-29-2017, 03:18 AM
The big problem is allowing current scheduling practices to remain. They really dont operate by any rules. This would allow them to basically have no rules going forward. I can’t imagine not having ANY language on scheduling practices.

mainlineAF
12-29-2017, 03:34 AM
The big problem is allowing current scheduling practices to remain. They really dont operate by any rules. This would allow them to basically have no rules going forward. I can’t imagine not having ANY language on scheduling practices.



I keep hearing that but what exactly aren’t they following?

Al Czervik
12-29-2017, 03:42 AM
I keep hearing that but what exactly aren’t they following?

I know that the handling of open time seems to change on what scheduling needs. I’ve spoken to scheduling 2-3 times this year. I don’t know what the issues entail. I’d hate to see this turned down unless it’s way out of hand. I would think the company has language on specifics rather than just “we’re going to do whatever we want.”
I think LOS is a big deal to us.

mainlineAF
12-29-2017, 03:47 AM
I know that the handling of open time seems to change on what scheduling needs. I’ve spoken to scheduling 2-3 times this year. I don’t know what the issues entail. I’d hate to see this turned down unless it’s way out of hand. I would think the company has language on specifics rather than just “we’re going to do whatever we want.”

I think LOS is a big deal to us.



Yea i don’t deal with scheduling much either. These scheduling issues just don’t seem like that big of a deal when compared to us gaining ACD and LOS.

If this gets voted down I’m going to be extremely disappointed.

EMBFlyer
12-29-2017, 04:52 AM
I don't get the push by the BOD to turn down things like profit sharing and this.

What's the point?

Profit sharing was fine, even if the union BOD couldn't negotiate in whatever bennies they wanted for themselves at the top.

LOS - This is great for those folks off property! I'd have thought it'd end up compromise (% equiv time when off property).

Avg day. Much fairer, some of those trips were BOGUS.

Folks demanding min day outside of contract ... uh? Even if available this BOD would never be able to negotiate for it - they were looking at turning down profit sharing...

The approach here at BOD level is too weird, what's in it for them?

Ego.

The answer to everyone one of your questions is ego.

Arado 234
12-29-2017, 05:28 AM
ALPA? Sometimes change can be good.

What is the point if you have the same idiots running the same show under a different name?

You want change? Vote them out!

"Back to the line, b¡t(hes!"

Saabs
12-29-2017, 05:47 AM
What is the point if you have the same idiots running the same show under a different name?

You want change? Vote them out!

"Back to the line, b¡t(hes!"

TW is by far the worst

Cheddar
12-29-2017, 06:50 AM
Where are you getting both DFW reps are voting this down?!? Ummmmmmmmm, I’ve talked to TW and he is leaning yes by all accounts although he has serious questions for the NC and JW has been a huge proponent and was Carey’s biggest fan during the townhall.

I get that TW rubs guys the wrong way, and I think he is dead wrong on many issues, but he is very open about what he’s thinking. He voted ‘no’ procedurally with the initial motion a few weeks ago because the BoD was left in the dark. I agree with him - it’s a bad precedent to set.

TW is the worst on the j/s issue - I agree, but in many respects he is very much for protecting us.

He’s an stuck in his ways, has an ego the size of his base, but the dude isn’t a super villain. I have talked with him many times via email about the AIP, and have sent soundoffs voicing my support of this deal - hopefully you’ve done the same!

mainlineAF
12-29-2017, 07:12 AM
Where are you getting both DFW reps are voting this down?!? Ummmmmmmmm, I’ve talked to TW and he is leaning yes by all accounts although he has serious questions for the NC and JW has been a huge proponent and was Carey’s biggest fan during the townhall.

I get that TW rubs guys the wrong way, and I think he is dead wrong on many issues, but he is very open about what he’s thinking. He voted ‘no’ procedurally with the initial motion a few weeks ago because the BoD was left in the dark. I agree with him - it’s a bad precedent to set.

TW is the worst on the j/s issue - I agree, but in many respects he is very much for protecting us.

He’s an stuck in his ways, has an ego the size of his base, but the dude isn’t a super villain. I have talked with him many times via email about the AIP, and have sent soundoffs voicing my support of this deal - hopefully you’ve done the same!



So is he saying that he thinks it will pass?

Laker24
12-29-2017, 07:33 AM
The big problem is allowing current scheduling practices to remain. They really dont operate by any rules. This would allow them to basically have no rules going forward. I can’t imagine not having ANY language on scheduling practices.

If we vote no that won't change. Voting yes sets up a schedule where APA meets with the company to resolve filling of open time. Or we can turn it all down and end up with nothing. We win 10% of our grievances. I can't believe it's even a debate.

If the BOD screws this up I think they should all be recalled.

aa73
12-29-2017, 07:47 AM
If we vote no that won't change. Voting yes sets up a schedule where APA meets with the company to resolve filling of open time. Or we can turn it all down and end up with nothing. We win 10% of our grievances. I can't believe it's even a debate.

If the BOD screws this up I think they should all be recalled.

^^^ This...

Even if we vote this thing down, nothing will change WRT scheduling practices. The violations will continue, CS will keep doing their thing.

It’s a no brainer.

The membership needs to revolt if the BOD votes this down.

Cheddar
12-29-2017, 09:18 AM
So is he saying that he thinks it will pass?



Didn’t ask him that. Just saying that he has relayed that there are many good things in the AIP, but he has some reservations. TW is many things but uncalculating isn’t one of them. He has a very tough election coming up, and I don’t think he is willing to just vote this down because...

MY guess is that several BoD members will ask for the NC to clarify language with the company, and it will ultimately pass. CLT, DCA, MIA and LAX will each have 1 no vote each. I think both DFW votes will be yes. I think it passes by a larger margin than we think. I hope so anyway, cause it’s going to be horrible if not. We will be more divided than ever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cheddar
12-29-2017, 09:19 AM
^^^ This...



Even if we vote this thing down, nothing will change WRT scheduling practices. The violations will continue, CS will keep doing their thing.



It’s a no brainer.



The membership needs to revolt if the BOD votes this down.



Agreed. We aren’t giving them anything that’s not happening anyway or that isn’t in the JCBA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Laker24
12-29-2017, 12:29 PM
Agreed. We aren’t giving them anything that’s not happening anyway or that isn’t in the JCBA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which makes no votes by any of the BOD indicative of a poor grasp of the big picture. Might be a good time to identify and replace individuals who are not representing the majority group.

I would guess there are a few senior bidders who make a lot of money on the side catching out CS assigning trips incorrectly. They grieve it and get paid. They don't want their side business to go away so they are pressuring reps to kill the deal. They will never deal with slash trips or reserve and don't care about LOS.

mainlineAF
12-30-2017, 06:38 AM
Both PHL reps are a solid no. Unbelievable.

Cheddar
12-30-2017, 08:29 AM
Vote them out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Al Czervik
12-30-2017, 08:32 AM
This is going to pass.

sailingfun
12-30-2017, 08:55 AM
When is the vote?

mainlineAF
12-30-2017, 08:56 AM
This is going to pass.



What do you base that on?

Laker24
12-30-2017, 09:04 AM
Both PHL reps are a solid no. Unbelievable.

It's the ex USAPA true believers. Probably the most political, ineffective, and belligerent union ever. They feed off hype and scare tactics. If I was based in Phil I would start organizing a recall today. Get those old stick in the mud types out of there. They would turn down a free $50 bill because they 'deserve' $100.

mainlineAF
12-30-2017, 09:09 AM
It's the ex USAPA true believers. Probably the most political, ineffective, and belligerent union ever. They feed off hype and scare tactics. If I was based in Phil I would start organizing a recall today. Get those old stick in the mud types out of there. They would turn down a free $50 bill because they 'deserve' $100.



This reminds me of the JCBA negotiations. The reason we don’t have ACD in the first place is because the union reached wayyyy too far after they almost had a deal with the company. Glass/Parker stopped negotiating and said take it or leave it.

We were bound by the MOU which called for cost neutral arbitration and then at the last minute the union said we want DL Profit sharing, 321s in group 3, a Long rate rig, and other things. Dougie and the boys laughed.

Al Czervik
12-30-2017, 09:21 AM
What do you base that on?

Tribal knowledge.

Laker24
12-30-2017, 10:25 AM
This reminds me of the JCBA negotiations. The reason we don’t have ACD in the first place is because the union reached wayyyy too far after they almost had a deal with the company. Glass/Parker stopped negotiating and said take it or leave it.

We were bound by the MOU which called for cost neutral arbitration and then at the last minute the union said we want DL Profit sharing, 321s in group 3, a Long rate rig, and other things. Dougie and the boys laughed.

That sounds right. Aren't you a CA in PHL? You should start a recall of those guys! I think you just need %50 +1 to vote them out.

R57 relay
12-30-2017, 10:27 AM
It's the ex USAPA true believers. Probably the most political, ineffective, and belligerent union ever. They feed off hype and scare tactics. If I was based in Phil I would start organizing a recall today. Get those old stick in the mud types out of there. They would turn down a free $50 bill because they 'deserve' $100.

Is there any chance they have some valid issues with the agreement?

I too think it will ultimately pass.

Name User
12-30-2017, 12:00 PM
That sounds right. Aren't you a CA in PHL? You should start a recall of those guys! I think you just need %50 +1 to vote them out.
I don't think the RJ gets a lot of respect in that regard :D.

There must be something with this that they would vote no. It would be like voting no on the 8% raise or profit sharing. Personally I think waiting for more info is needed. There may be a huge concern if this many are voting against it.

A330FoodCritic
12-30-2017, 12:41 PM
Both PHL reps are a solid no. Unbelievable.

Well lets hear their reasons on Tuesday before we hang, stone, and tar/feather them.

They may have some information we don't have. If we don't like their reasons, then we stone them.

mainlineAF
12-30-2017, 01:20 PM
Well lets hear their reasons on Tuesday before we hang, stone, and tar/feather them.



They may have some information we don't have. If we don't like their reasons, then we stone them.



All of the gives in the agreement are so minor. In one of the blasts they said ACD and LOS are worth 250 million the next 2 years and the grievances we are settling are in the 10 million ( i think) range.

If we were giving up a lot of significant things then I’d see why they’d want to vote no. But for some minor scheduling gives? Who cares.

This just seems so political. Some BOD members got their feelings hurt and now they’re lashing out.

AFTrainerGuy
12-30-2017, 02:34 PM
All of the gives in the agreement are so minor. In one of the blasts they said ACD and LOS are worth 250 million the next 2 years and the grievances we are settling are in the 10 million ( i think) range.

If we were giving up a lot of significant things then I’d see why they’d want to vote no. But for some minor scheduling gives? Who cares.

This just seems so political. Some BOD members got their feelings hurt and now they’re lashing out.

This will be first time I actually listen start to finish. I can’t for life of me reason why they would vote no. I agree with others... hear them out and the we can start a uprising if it turns out to be BS.

Really... what else can we do? I do think it’s BS if they haven’t received any info on gives. I just hope it’s not cuz they’re butthurt about how it went down

mainlineAF
12-30-2017, 04:12 PM
Why would the Philly guys send out an email saying they’re a solid NO and not explain why? Now we have to wait until the night before the vote to hear their BS reasoning.

The secrecy is what’s the most annoying. Tell us why you’re voting no on 250 mil of improvements outside of section 6 now.

Sliceback
12-30-2017, 05:17 PM
All of the gives in the agreement are so minor. In one of the blasts they said ACD and LOS are worth 250 million the next 2 years and the grievances we are settling are in the 10 million ( i think) range.



Proof that guys need to listen to the CLT/PHL opposing POV.
Several years ago, when LOS and CD were worth more due to the length of time until the next contract, the value was supposedly much less than the $250 million being mentioned now.

Since LOS was valued at $31 million they’re saying ACD is $220+ million?

Rough estimate means that average pilot gets 7 hrs of P&C per month. Ask your DL or UA buddies if they’re getting that much from ACD?

Those are the questions that need to be asked, and answered, by both camps.

EMBFlyer
12-30-2017, 06:02 PM
Vote them out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why? They weren't voted in the first place. Neither were the two in CLT. Both bases ran unopposed.

mainlineAF
12-30-2017, 06:48 PM
Proof that guys need to listen to the CLT/PHL opposing POV.

Several years ago, when LOS and CD were worth more due to the length of time until the next contract, the value was supposedly much less than the $250 million being mentioned now.



Since LOS was valued at $31 million they’re saying ACD is $220+ million?



Rough estimate means that average pilot gets 7 hrs of P&C per month. Ask your DL or UA buddies if they’re getting that much from ACD?



Those are the questions that need to be asked, and answered, by both camps.



I wish CLT and PHL would say why they don’t agree with the AIP. That rambling blast from CLT a couple weeks ago was basically them being angry that Dan didn’t include them in the process or some nonsense. PHL hasn’t said why they aren’t on board.

These two things don’t really pertain to me. I was never furloughed and am senior enough in my seat to avoid the slash trips. But it still baffles me these guys want to shoot it down for no good reason.

sumwherelse
12-30-2017, 07:15 PM
Why? They weren't voted in the first place. Neither were the two in CLT. Both bases ran unopposed.

That’s not true I don’t believe. There was at least one third lister who ran in philly and was obliterated.

Laker24
12-30-2017, 07:45 PM
Why would the Philly guys send out an email saying they’re a solid NO and not explain why? Now we have to wait until the night before the vote to hear their BS reasoning.

The secrecy is what’s the most annoying. Tell us why you’re voting no on 250 mil of improvements outside of section 6 now.

They live for that secrecy BS on the east. It was rampant during the USAPA days.

EMBFlyer
12-31-2017, 04:10 AM
I wish CLT and PHL would say why they don’t agree with the AIP. That rambling blast from CLT a couple weeks ago was basically them being angry that Dan didn’t include them in the process or some nonsense. PHL hasn’t said why they aren’t on board.

These two things don’t really pertain to me. I was never furloughed and am senior enough in my seat to avoid the slash trips. But it still baffles me these guys want to shoot it down for no good reason.

That one's easy. PHL doesn't agree because CLT doesn't agree.

EMBFlyer
12-31-2017, 04:11 AM
That’s not true I don’t believe. There was at least one third lister who ran in philly and was obliterated.

That was two elections ago. Last election, both PHL and CLT ran completely unopposed. There was another person running for Vice in PHL, but he withdrew and went another direction. Bob and Ron and have run unopposed, though for AT LEAST 2 election cycles.

Laker24
12-31-2017, 07:31 AM
These two things don’t really pertain to me. I was never furloughed and am senior enough in my seat to avoid the slash trips. But it still baffles me these guys want to shoot it down for no good reason.

I used to agree with that. But then I found out how prevalent these low credit trips are in the AA system. Unless you want to remain FO or group 1 CA for life the 5:15 is going to have a big impact on your career.

Even Group 4 captains have a ton of trips which pay less than 5:15 per day. I don't want to be a 320 or 777 CA with 12 days off per month.

Those idiots in CLT and PHL need to go. It would be awesome if someone started a recall effort before the vote. We need to send a clear message that the secrecy, FUD, incoherent base blasts, and dirty politics have no place in our union. You don't see the same incompetent BS at Delta or United. It would be a comical side show if it wasn't costing us money and time away from our families.

jcountry
12-31-2017, 07:36 AM
I used to agree with that. But then I found out how prevalent these low credit trips are in the AA system. Unless you want to remain FO or group 1 CA for life the 5:15 is going to have a big impact on your career.

Even Group 4 captains have a ton of trips which pay less than 5:15 per day. I don't want to be a 320 or 777 CA with 12 days off per month.

I don't understand this logic.

Every other legacy has pretty much those exact rigs, and they don't have awful schedules with no movement.

How would 5:15 ruin everything?

Laker24
12-31-2017, 07:39 AM
I am for 5:15. Mainline was saying slash trips don't affect him through seniority. Slash trips and trips paying less than 5:15 will affect everybody at AA over the course of a career. AA pilots work more days for less money.

Even senior FOs need 5:15 because after they upgrade they will become junior CAs. Pilots flying Europe need 5:15. Hawaii needs it. South America. Etc etc.

Route66
12-31-2017, 08:16 AM
I used to agree with that. But then I found out how prevalent these low credit trips are in the AA system. Unless you want to remain FO or group 1 CA for life the 5:15 is going to have a big impact on your career.

Even Group 4 captains have a ton of trips which pay less than 5:15 per day. I don't want to be a 320 or 777 CA with 12 days off per month.

Those idiots in CLT and PHL need to go. It would be awesome if someone started a recall effort before the vote. We need to send a clear message that the secrecy, FUD, incoherent base blasts, and dirty politics have no place in our union. You don't see the same incompetent BS at Delta or United. It would be a comical side show if it wasn't costing us money and time away from our families.

Uh....they ran....UNOPPOSED???? Who replaces them? Someone from YOUR domicile, I suppose?

sumwherelse
12-31-2017, 09:19 AM
That was two elections ago. Last election, both PHL and CLT ran completely unopposed. There was another person running for Vice in PHL, but he withdrew and went another direction. Bob and Ron and have run unopposed, though for AT LEAST 2 election cycles.

Wow time flies. Well next time let’s get someone in there to oppose them!!!

mainlineAF
12-31-2017, 09:52 AM
I am for 5:15. Mainline was saying slash trips don't affect him through seniority. Slash trips and trips paying less than 5:15 will affect everybody at AA over the course of a career. AA pilots work more days for less money.



Even senior FOs need 5:15 because after they upgrade they will become junior CAs. Pilots flying Europe need 5:15. Hawaii needs it. South America. Etc etc.



I was actually going to mention something about how ACD affects everyone at the airline even if you don’t currently fly slash trips. But I got lazy. So I’m 100% with you that even though I don’t fly them i will when i go to group 2 captain.

A lot of people on c&r keep talking about how bad the trips will be if we get ACD. It’s laughable. Even when I have a regular non slash trip I’ll fly some trips that just have one leg day one or one leg day 4 even though we’re crediting 5:10 average duty day.

Sliceback
12-31-2017, 10:33 AM
Isn’t the percentage of slash trips around 2%?

The decision is between the value of the gains vs the value of any concessions.

mainlineAF
12-31-2017, 01:05 PM
Isn’t the percentage of slash trips around 2%?



The decision is between the value of the gains vs the value of any concessions.



Yep. 250 mil vs 10 mil. No brained.

Sunfish FAIP
12-31-2017, 04:05 PM
Fellas,

Can someone explain what a slashed trip is?

Thanks

blastoff
12-31-2017, 04:26 PM
Fellas,

Can someone explain what a slashed trip is?

Thanks

It's a trip that works fewer days than you're gone due to a 24+ hour overnight. A normal (non-slash) 3 day displays the overnights as (for example) "ORD-DEN" in the Layover column on the N4 display for a 3 day that overnights in ORD on night 1 and DEN night 2. If you fly to ORD and then spend 30 hours (all of day 2) at the hotel and then go home on day 3, it displays as "ORD/" in the N4 Layover column--hence the name "slash." Most of our slash trips are 3 days gone, only earning 2 working days pay. At United and Delta, a 3 day is a 3 day regardless if you overnight 24+ hours.

Sunfish FAIP
12-31-2017, 05:06 PM
So now the stoning, tar and feathers discussion makes real good sense. With the passing of ACD it will readjust the rig to what kind of minimums per day gone?

blastoff
12-31-2017, 05:28 PM
So now the stoning, tar and feathers discussion makes real good sense. With the passing of ACD it will readjust the rig to what kind of minimums per day gone?

Average of 5:15. Therefore all 3 days (finish after 0200 day 3) worth 15:45, 4 days 21:00. Currently a bunch of 3 day slash trips paying in the 11-12 hour range.

Name User
12-31-2017, 07:40 PM
After reading the arguments against I hope it gets voted down. That RO language is total BS. Must take highest time trip? WTF?

With ACD most of those low paying trips will go away and be interspersed in regular flying. It will pay more for sure. I can't believe they are the most efficient use of resources but the company feels like it is.

Did you catch that line about not floating or no LOS?

Oh and the lanagusge doesn't even get implemted until Fall of next year!

This isn't a base hit, if anything it's a step back with loss of work rules.

jcountry
12-31-2017, 08:23 PM
After reading the arguments against I hope it gets voted down. That RO language is total BS. Must take highest time trip? WTF?

With ACD most of those low paying trips will go away and be interspersed in regular flying. It will pay more for sure. I can't believe they are the most efficient use of resources but the company feels like it is.

Did you catch that line about not floating or no LOS?

Oh and the lanagusge doesn't even get implemted until Fall of next year!

This isn't a base hit, if anything it's a step back with loss of work rules.

I agree.

I started on the other side of the fence, but wow-this agreement has one hell of a lot of bad in it.

Leave it to our ****stain union to **** this up beyond belief.

I don’t care whether it passes or not. Just send me the card to decertify this abomination of a union.

Route66
01-01-2018, 05:33 AM
I agree.

I started on the other side of the fence, but wow-this agreement has one hell of a lot of bad in it.

Leave it to our ****stain union to **** this up beyond belief.

I don’t care whether it passes or not. Just send me the card to decertify this abomination of a union.

You won’t send in a card. You’ll complain here or CNR like everyone does, keep paying your money and accept what’s given to you. They don’t listen to you guys. I don’t get on CNR and my computer screen still bulges with all the complaining/no action coming from APA Pilots. This site is a mirror of CNR. You’ll take what you’re given.
Happy New Year 2018. APA.....same ole same ole.

Laker24
01-01-2018, 07:23 AM
How often are you guys RO'd? I have had a grand total of 1 recovery obligation during the last 12 months. Did it suck? Sure but I would much rather have 5:15 for 12 months of the year and deal with a RO every once in a blue moon. If we vote no the RO practices will remain the same. We gain nothing with a no vote except the chance to continue winning 5% of our grievances. Voting yes gives us a 50% settlement on grievances.

So we are turning down massive economic benefit to keep from conceding practices that are already in place and maybe used a couple times per year per pilot. Not to mention we can fix RO language in Section 6. Our JCBA is written with so many holes in it at the moment it's nearly worthless. There is a give to this but the take is much larger than the give. If we were offered $500/hour to give up crew meals the CLT and PHL reps would be raising hell that this is unsafe and we shouldn't be paying for our pay raise, etc.

sherpster
01-01-2018, 07:56 AM
How bad are the schedules at AA?

Laker24
01-01-2018, 08:05 AM
How bad are the schedules at AA?

Senior schedules are great. But they suck for junior guys. We have a lot of junior lines with 10 days off due to 3 day pairings paying 11 hours. This is a problem with narrow body and wide body aircraft. This agreement would make a junior line go from 10 to 15 days off and exposes each pilot to possibly getting a crappy re-assigment maybe a couple times a year in exchange. Seems like a great trade to me.

biigD
01-01-2018, 08:17 AM
How bad are the schedules at AA?

I think it's heavily dependent on the base and equipment (and seniority, obviously). The 737 in NYC isn't bad. I tend to fly five 3-day trips per month. Every so often I'll be awarded four 3-days. So between 12-15 days of work, although usually it'll be 15. My trips tend to average around 17-19 hours, although some of the garbage ones can be down at 15.30. Fortunately NYC is really junior, so with about 4 years of seniority I'm over halfway up the FO list and can avoid flying stuff that sucks (redeyes, low credit, or 3 leg days).

So generally I'm pretty happy. But I also live in base and don't care about commutability. I know a lot of guys at AA are getting abused out there - 12 days off, and so on. I'm sure they'll chime in with their situation.

OVBIII
01-01-2018, 08:34 AM
I’m looking at the documents on the APA website. Where does it mention the RO modification and float/LOS stuff? I am sure I am skipping over it because of my lack of sleep. I’d really like to read it though.

Laker24
01-01-2018, 11:39 AM
what percentage of our trips get RO'd. What percentage would benefit from 5:15?

mainlineAF
01-01-2018, 12:10 PM
After reading the arguments against I hope it gets voted down. That RO language is total BS. Must take highest time trip? WTF?

With ACD most of those low paying trips will go away and be interspersed in regular flying. It will pay more for sure. I can't believe they are the most efficient use of resources but the company feels like it is.

Did you catch that line about not floating or no LOS?

Oh and the lanagusge doesn't even get implemted until Fall of next year!

This isn't a base hit, if anything it's a step back with loss of work rules.



The RO language is already BS. Since LUS could be in RO i think I’ve been subject to it once. Not a huge deal.

On the other hand ACD is huge. It gets us on par with other airlines and sets us up much better for section 6.

Voting this down would be a bad choice.

Name User
01-01-2018, 01:14 PM
Anyone know how the proposed RO language compares to other carriers?

OVBIII
01-01-2018, 01:25 PM
Anyone know how the proposed RO language compares to other carriers?

Where did you read the RO language? I am still trying to find it so I can read it. Thanks for the help!

mainlineAF
01-01-2018, 01:46 PM
Where did you read the RO language? I am still trying to find it so I can read it. Thanks for the help!



Check the DC base blast on allied pilots.

OVBIII
01-01-2018, 02:41 PM
Check the DC base blast on allied pilots.

copy thanks.

Laker24
01-01-2018, 02:43 PM
This from a pilot handling grievances. He sums it up pretty well. Hopefully our marginally competent BOD don't f this up.


What can I add that hasn’t already been said? Here goes....
I’ve been swimming neck deep in this river of **** for all of us for years now, and along the way a lot of my righteous indignation has been burned away, painfully. It’s easy to drive by and say, “THIS SUCKS! WE SHOULD DO SOMETHING!”
I’ts another thing entirely to fight them day after day, year after year, and see time and again they hold ALL the cards. The only one we have, we have a gun pointed at our heads if we try to pull it. THAT’S REALITY.
ALL we have are wits and occasional opportunities. You think this mini-Nego was ugly, Section 6 is going to look like the Somme by comparison.
Most of what the DCA reps cataloged in their blast is just a recitation of the now long running status quo:
* DOTC is per 2003 CBA 18.G.7, ironically a Contract LUS was NEVER party to. There never was any end in sight to AA using it, and it’s preferable to the currently structured DOTC/RAS in 15.J (unimplemented,) so to agree to maintain the status quo we want over the POS agreed to in the MTA doesn’t seem a sacrifice. 🤔
* 15.B Electronic notification was long ago agreed to, and frankly is logical. This silly game of hide and seek we are wedded to is complex nonsense, the last vestige of the secondary home land line the wife and kids were told to NEVER answer. 🙄
It’s a dynamic environment, which needs a responsive system. The DMV way of doing business around here has to end. We need to be highly compensated to get the job done, not get out of working. Sorry Mike Pliske. 😜
* RO: they already do WTF they want with RO, because the system is so complex few understand it, and just do what they are told ; the answer is to simplify and ADD MONEY!
* Grievances: AA is already defendant, judge, jury, executioner, and forgetful paymaster. They do WTF they want, and must be hounded to the ends of the earth to even get them to reply in a remotely timely manner.
To settle them at 50% is a better batting average than I can ever get anymore, since Todd Jewett decided to play hard ball.
I just ask that that you guys look REALISTICALLY at what we are up against.
I wanted MIN calendar day, but it was not to be, and isn’t at DL or UA either. Dave R assured us the 2 hr backstop won’t affect us hardly ever. I have my concerns, otherwise why would they put it in there, when DL doesn’t have it?
I wanted FULL Retro, but it’s not there, and many here are squawking LOS is already too good as offered 🤪
I didn’t want to “pay” anything for any of this; bailing them out of Xmas should have been enough to get them down on their knees, but it’s not how they roll... they KNOW the rules are all in their favor, and they ARE utterly callous.
If you’ve got an actual bigger hammer than Dan had, I’m all ears, but I see the BoD clamoring for relevance, then voting “yes.”
What’s their plan for “no?“ I missed that in the DCA blast. 🤔

Laker24
01-01-2018, 02:46 PM
The RO language is already BS. Since LUS could be in RO i think I’ve been subject to it once. Not a huge deal.

On the other hand ACD is huge. It gets us on par with other airlines and sets us up much better for section 6.

Voting this down would be a bad choice.


Exactly! The RO language sucks and will not improve if we vote no. How often do you guys get a RO? For me it's been exactly once. 5:15 is a major gain. Los is another big one and needs to get cleared from the table prior to section 6 if we want to have a shot at an industry leading contract.

mainlineAF
01-01-2018, 03:03 PM
Exactly! The RO language sucks and will not improve if we vote no. How often do you guys get a RO? For me it's been exactly once. 5:15 is a major gain. Los is another big one and needs to get cleared from the table prior to section 6 if we want to have a shot at an industry leading contract.



Yep. It’s actually baffling to me that people would even consider this being a bad deal.

The JCBA is a joke and we have an opportunity to fix two major things that we’ve been complaining about for years and people don’t want to take it? I’m shocked.

R57 relay
01-01-2018, 03:03 PM
Exactly! The RO language sucks and will not improve if we vote no. How often do you guys get a RO? For me it's been exactly once. 5:15 is a major gain. Los is another big one and needs to get cleared from the table prior to section 6 if we want to have a shot at an industry leading contract.

Where are the NO voters on the JCBA?

Let’s review:

-The company gave us back the profit sharing we sold for extra per diem.
-The company gave us an average 8% raise.
-We drew a line in sand over LOS and the company walked away. They screwed up Christmas and came back with 200% for some holiday trips, LOS and ACD, but with gives. Former NO voters are tripping over themselves to say YES, YES, YES!!!.

I’m starting to think RTE66 is on the right track with his no union idea.

mainlineAF
01-01-2018, 04:05 PM
Where are the NO voters on the JCBA?



Let’s review:



-The company gave us back the profit sharing we sold for extra per diem.

-The company gave us an average 8% raise.

-We drew a line in sand over LOS and the company walked away. They screwed up Christmas and came back with 200% for some holiday trips, LOS and ACD, but with gives. Former NO voters are tripping over themselves to say YES, YES, YES!!!.



I’m starting to think RTE66 is on the right track with his no union idea.



You’re over-simplifying it. The JCBA and this deal are completely different. I was a firm no on the JCBA and am a firm yes on this.

If you agree with 66 on anything we may need to put you in a home lol

Harry Dunn
01-01-2018, 04:18 PM
I’m not currently in support of this agreement, just like our JCBA, the language isn’t strong enough. If we have to wait for a better opportunity (read section 6) to really make an improvement to our contract, I’m all for it. So far our JCBA is the worst contract I’ve ever experienced; implementation language, rescheduling allowances, low-premium compensation, endless grievances, continuous pay discrepancies, etc.. We shouldn’t continue to expect better results with the same flawed reasoning we used to pass the current JCBA.

I don’t see any reason to give ANYTHING up in this situation, we didn’t create the problem. Expecting 70% of the vacation to go unused to trigger ACD, guarantees we won’t see this contract provision any time soon, especially with the toothless penalty. Just like the JCBA, the language won’t prevent this from turning into a complete cluster. Anyone expecting otherwise is relying on PFM as a quality of life improvement.

A321
01-01-2018, 06:08 PM
I want average calendar day more than anyone else, but I don't want it traded for electronic notification.

WE SHOULD BE GIVING UP ZERO IN THIS CURRENT ENVIRONMENT.

DCA Blast.... must read:

The BOD will meet Jan. 3rd to evaluate a potential agreement on LOS, Duty Rigs, and allowing AA's protocol method on filling open time. AA's protocol, attached, violates many JCBA Sec. 15 requirements. Your DCA Representatives will decide on the agreement after we receive the full briefing from the National Officers and APA Committee members.

AGREEMENT HIGHLIGHTS

LOS

If the pilot group doesn't float a minimum amount of vacation, implementation of Duty Rigs will be delayed 4 months to 1/1/19. Any LOS pilot omissions discovered after 7/1/18 will not receive retro pay to 6/1/17.

Duty Rigs

New Rig is 5:15 Average Calendar Day with release after 0159 to receive credit. This conflicts with JCBA Calendar Day definition, "A calendar day (0000-2400) in which any duty is performed for the company including sign-in and debrief." Daily Minimum Guarantee changes from 3 to 2 hours. Delta has an Average Day of 5:15, no daily minimum. United has 5:00 Average Day, no daily minimum.

DOTC/Reserve Assignment System (RAS) - Filling of Open Time

AA's Protocol Open Time Coverage wish list is attached below.

The new JCBA RAS process has not been implemented. AA has been violating Open Time Coverage rules since day 1 of the JCBA. The proposed DOTC/RAS agreement adopts AA's current illegal process (Protocol) indefinitely until a new DOTC/RAS system is approved. We will meet to Define/Understand the Protocol and establish it as a the "Benchmark". We cannot file any further grievances on the New Protocol open time language, but we can file new grievances on Protocol violations. Violations of violations. Once approved, the new DOTC/RAS system will take 18 months to implement (mid 2019?). Then we will have to monitor and evaluate the new system for months (2020?). Any Grievances on the new system will restrict the Arbitrator to only interpreting the language and no authority to award any remedy or penalty. No teeth to force correction!

What's in it for AA. AA gains advantages in flexible scheduling for the next 1.5+ years to include electronic notification. JCBA 15 B.2. "To the maximum extent possible, electronic notification and acknowledgment between the Company and pilots will be used for open time assignments." The 8 page Protocol itself has 40+ violations of the JCBA and is definitely a Quality of Live issue.

Example: Protocol Step 1 Sequence Protection

1. Allows Crew Scheduling/Tracking to highest time trip in Replacement Flying Window (RFW). JCBA 4 C.6.a.1. says "best matches the hours of obligation and the footprint of the affected sequence based on the pilot's preference ballot."

2. Highest time trip may exceed Recovery Obligation (RO). Violates JCBA4 C.6.a.1

3. Call H number only and message is considered notification. Violates FAR 117 and JCBA 15 B. AA wants to assign pilots in rest period prior to sign in. FAR's don't allow this notification.

RO conflict with DFP allows AA to move or cancel DFP and assign RO that exceeds IMAX or MMAX. Violates JCBA 4 C.3.a. and 15 D.4.

4. Every day AA waits to the latest possible moment to find trip that fits the RFW and then makes single call for cancellation or assignment. Violates FAR 117 and JCBA 4 C.1.c. Currently, AA must assign replacement flying within 3 hours of cancellation.

The argument for the Protocol process is that AA will continue the violations and agreeing to it will get us to a final product quicker, mid-2019 vs the next contract. No one can be absolutely sure.



THE GOOD

-LOS correction to 6/1/17 and full LOS for future furloughed pilots.

-Duty Rig 5:15 improvement

QUESTIONABLE ITEMS

-Elimination of grievances at 50% value.

-What happens after negotiating the protocol for the required 4 months? Will AA just implement a new process without our involvement or consent?

-Does this incentivize AA to start abiding by the contract or condone bad behavior?


THE BAD

-APA condoning AA's future contractual violations.

-Protocol violations have no remedy or penalty.

-Do we want electronic notification to the maximum extent in our next contract?

-Leverage with Vacation Float?

-What group of Pilots are suffering the most currently? Long Term Disabled Pilots. Why don't we have an AA deadline to fix this devastating issue?

-Is this a distraction for our Committees preparing for contract openers on 1/1/19?



Do base hits on improvements hurt our overall CBA strategy going forward?

R57 relay
01-01-2018, 07:20 PM
You’re over-simplifying it. The JCBA and this deal are completely different. I was a firm no on the JCBA and am a firm yes on this.

If you agree with 66 on anything we may need to put you in a home lol

Coming from you this doesn’t surprise me a bit.

cactusmike
01-01-2018, 09:49 PM
Electronic notification was agreed to in the JCBA. We’ve been waiting for the implementation. The present system is just crazy, it’s time to join the Internet age.

LOS will be great for the guys that took a hit in the 2000s, especially the TWA guys. They got hammered twice, they could use a win. The MidAtlantic guys lost all of their arbitrations, they were never mainline, they should not be the reason PHL votes no.

Slash trips are just ridiculous. There’s no way a major airline contract should have this in place. Fixing it now means not expending negotiating capital in section 6.

I’m not going to float next year. I want my vacation. If we don’t float we put pressure on the company going into section 6 in 2019. A 4 month hit on implementing min day is worth the angst scheduling will go through next summer. But that’s just my view, since the union is silent on this we need to determine our individual preferences here.

OVBIII
01-02-2018, 02:53 AM
I keep looking at all the data. Most of the things the company is using as leverage, they seem to do already. We can say no, and stay at status quo. Or we can vote yes and at least move forward to increasing our QOL. Call it myopia, but I feel we need to heavily consider this one. Negotiations are not too far away for our next contract, we may be able to do what another post said a few days/week ago and "test drive" this for our section 6.
Being as it may, I have learned quite a bit from all y'alls thoughts and posts. Hope we all have a wonderful 2018. Cheers.

Al Czervik
01-02-2018, 03:11 AM
I like the reference to contract adjustments that violate FAR117. If it violates 117 we really shouldn’t be worried about that...no?

mainlineAF
01-02-2018, 08:47 AM
Coming from you this doesn’t surprise me a bit.



Explain.

Filler

mainlineAF
01-02-2018, 05:58 PM
Anyone catch the second caller on the PHL town hall tonight? Lol that was hilarious. Dude was rambling about how APA, ALPA and USAPA all suck and are all the same.

Oh and how if the LOS guys get a Pay bump he’s been here 34 years he deserves one too.

Classic

Al Czervik
01-03-2018, 01:46 AM
Anyone catch the second caller on the PHL town hall tonight? Lol that was hilarious. Dude was rambling about how APA, ALPA and USAPA all suck and are all the same.

Oh and how if the LOS guys get a Pay bump he’s been here 34 years he deserves one too.

Classic

Where’s the link to the conference call audio?

Mover
01-03-2018, 04:50 AM
Attachment 3 is a bad deal all around. I hope the BOD votes no today.

Route66
01-03-2018, 04:56 AM
Anyone catch the second caller on the PHL town hall tonight? Lol that was hilarious. Dude was rambling about how APA, ALPA and USAPA all suck and are all the same.

Oh and how if the LOS guys get a Pay bump he’s been here 34 years he deserves one too.

Classic

He’s my hero. It’s going to open up APA for lawsuits, that’s for sure. How the union favors its own furloughed pilots over US Airways East and TWA Pilots. Oh, now that the Company is giving every employee 1000 dollars does the BOD have to approve it like they did with the profit sharing?

Route66
01-03-2018, 05:33 AM
I keep looking at all the data. Most of the things the company is using as leverage, they seem to do already. We can say no, and stay at status quo. Or we can vote yes and at least move forward to increasing our QOL. Call it myopia, but I feel we need to heavily consider this one. Negotiations are not too far away for our next contract, we may be able to do what another post said a few days/week ago and "test drive" this for our section 6.
Being as it may, I have learned quite a bit from all y'alls thoughts and posts. Hope we all have a wonderful 2018. Cheers.

Thats the spirit!!! Increasing our "QOL". You mean YOUR quality of life. Your probably one of the furloughed pilots. All the while the LAA furloughed pilots get SPECIAL TREATMENT at our expense.

Test drive for section 6, huh. Is that the way you see it? Like buying a car or a house??

Buy a lemon or a lark.....but DON'T buy the best. You get what you negotiate. And you keep buying LEMONS! HA HA HA!!!

OVBIII
01-03-2018, 06:11 AM
Thats the spirit!!! Increasing our "QOL". You mean YOUR quality of life. Your probably one of the furloughed pilots. All the while the LAA furloughed pilots get SPECIAL TREATMENT at our expense.

Test drive for section 6, huh. Is that the way you see it? Like buying a car or a house??

Buy a lemon or a lark.....but DON'T buy the best. You get what you negotiate. And you keep buying LEMONS! HA HA HA!!!

Breathe, buddy. Breathe.

AFTrainerGuy
01-03-2018, 06:47 AM
Attachment 3 is a bad deal all around. I hope the BOD votes no today.


Why are we even voting yet? Wait until there’s actual final language, evaluate, and then vote.

I just don’t see Rush with Retro on LOS and ACD up to a 9 months away (at least, if ever implemented)

We sit on here and rail about vagueness, language, and items never being implemented. What changes here? They get scheduling stuff immediately and we wait again not really knowing what we signed.

Most of tele-meeting was FUD but this was valid point.

Hard to say yes or no without details.

Route66
01-03-2018, 07:59 AM
Why are we even voting yet? Wait until there’s actual final language, evaluate, and then vote.

I just don’t see Rush with Retro on LOS and ACD up to a 9 months away (at least, if ever implemented)

We sit on here and rail about vagueness, language, and items never being implemented. What changes here? They get scheduling stuff immediately and we wait again not really knowing what we signed.

Most of tele-meeting was FUD but this was valid point.

Hard to say yes or no without details.

You may not quite understand....YOU DO NOT GET A VOTE. Only the B-O-D gets to vote.

flyinawa
01-03-2018, 08:50 AM
Electronic notification was agreed to in the JCBA. We’ve been waiting for the implementation. The present system is just crazy, it’s time to join the Internet age.

LOS will be great for the guys that took a hit in the 2000s, especially the TWA guys. They got hammered twice, they could use a win. The MidAtlantic guys lost all of their arbitrations, they were never mainline, they should not be the reason PHL votes no.

Slash trips are just ridiculous. There’s no way a major airline contract should have this in place. Fixing it now means not expending negotiating capital in section 6.

I’m not going to float next year. I want my vacation. If we don’t float we put pressure on the company going into section 6 in 2019. A 4 month hit on implementing min day is worth the angst scheduling will go through next summer. But that’s just my view, since the union is silent on this we need to determine our individual preferences here.

This. All of this.

AFTrainerGuy
01-03-2018, 09:30 AM
You may not quite understand....YOU DO NOT GET A VOTE. Only the B-O-D gets to vote.

I understand completely... why are they even voting... what is the rush?

aa73
01-03-2018, 05:55 PM
Vote postponed til 1/16. More enhancements coming... LTD fixes maybe? I still think they will vote it in.

“After discussion and debate, the board approved a motion delaying a vote on the settlement agreement until Jan. 16 “for purposes of providing time for the association and company negotiators to fully ‘benchmark’ Attachment 3: ‘Current Process of Filling of Open Time’ and to narrow the scope of settlement terms covering Presidential Grievances.”

jcountry
01-03-2018, 09:26 PM
If they would bring LTD up to par, might make this crap agreement worth choking down.

Dobbs18
01-04-2018, 05:20 AM
If they would bring LTD up to par, might make this crap agreement worth choking down.

I would still be a NO....my biggest complaint is why in the world our we even talking about giving up stuff to get what Delta and United already have as status quo?! It would be 1 think if we had to give up something to get record breaking rigs, or profit sharing, of LTD language, but guess what that's not what is going on here. We are simply trying to get what Delta, United, and SWA have, and even if we did get these things at no "cost" our contract would STILL be behind theirs!!! Lets not let a vocal minority (10% or less I think) dictate what happens to 100% of us. I sent in a soundoff bc apparently the LOS Now group sends in 50+ a day, and I didn't want theirs to be the only voice APA hears. I want the LOS guys to be made whole, but not at the expense of EVERYONE else.

Al Czervik
01-04-2018, 06:08 AM
I would still be a NO....my biggest complaint is why in the world our we even talking about giving up stuff to get what Delta and United already have as status quo?! It would be 1 think if we had to give up something to get record breaking rigs, or profit sharing, of LTD language, but guess what that's not what is going on here. We are simply trying to get what Delta, United, and SWA have, and even if we did get these things at no "cost" our contract would STILL be behind theirs!!! Lets not let a vocal minority (10% or less I think) dictate what happens to 100% of us. I sent in a soundoff bc apparently the LOS Now group sends in 50+ a day, and I didn't want theirs to be the only voice APA hears. I want the LOS guys to be made whole, but not at the expense of EVERYONE else.

Yup. No concessions. Period.

jcountry
01-04-2018, 08:14 AM
Y’all are right.

I guess I was just trying to dream some kind of rationalization for thinking this POS isn’t so bad.

Thedude
01-04-2018, 08:25 AM
Yup. No concessions. Period.

Same here




filler

Saabs
01-04-2018, 08:49 AM
Does someone want to explain the RO and deleting a DFP concession?

First off what’s a DFP and why is it different than another day off? I don’t understand this concept. Don’t think we had this at airways?

Laker24
01-04-2018, 09:15 AM
I would still be a NO....my biggest complaint is why in the world our we even talking about giving up stuff to get what Delta and United already have as status quo?! It would be 1 think if we had to give up something to get record breaking rigs, or profit sharing, of LTD language, but guess what that's not what is going on here. We are simply trying to get what Delta, United, and SWA have, and even if we did get these things at no "cost" our contract would STILL be behind theirs!!! Lets not let a vocal minority (10% or less I think) dictate what happens to 100% of us. I sent in a soundoff bc apparently the LOS Now group sends in 50+ a day, and I didn't want theirs to be the only voice APA hears. I want the LOS guys to be made whole, but not at the expense of EVERYONE else.


Why are so many pilots so uninformed? We are not giving up anything. If we vote yes nothing will change with scheduling. If we vote no then nothing will change with scheduling. Our current JCBA has holes big enough to drive a truck through. If we vote yes we get 5:15, LOS, and set up a process to negotiate scheduling with mgt. if we vote no we get nothing, continue disputing the company and winning only 5% of grievances and put all our hopes on arbitration. Our best outcome in arbitration would probably be to meet with the company and mediate a solution. I know this isn't black and white and pilots have a hard time dealing with nuances. But voting no is not going to help us.

PRS Guitars
01-04-2018, 09:51 AM
Does someone want to explain the RO and deleting a DFP concession?

First off what’s a DFP and why is it different than another day off? I don’t understand this concept. Don’t think we had this at airways?

Don’t know. About the first question.

You’re right, we didn’t have DFP’s at LUS. As far as I can tell we get our 10 contractual days off as DFP’s, and any other days off as just days off. I think they can fly us into non DFP days off, I’m not positive. I use litesaber to put a DFP behind every trip I have just in case.

Dobbs18
01-04-2018, 09:55 AM
Why are so many pilots so uninformed? We are not giving up anything. If we vote yes nothing will change with scheduling. If we vote no then nothing will change with scheduling. Our current JCBA has holes big enough to drive a truck through. If we vote yes we get 5:15, LOS, and set up a process to negotiate scheduling with mgt. if we vote no we get nothing, continue disputing the company and winning only 5% of grievances and put all our hopes on arbitration. Our best outcome in arbitration would probably be to meet with the company and mediate a solution. I know this isn't black and white and pilots have a hard time dealing with nuances. But voting no is not going to help us.

We are giving up! We are telling them, hey no biggie, y’all have had 3 or whatever years to implement this JCBA thing and you can’t do it, hey no problem we will give you a pass and take improvements for 10% of our pilot group. And improvement for all of us ONLY if we don’t bid too much vacation. It’s 2000 freaking 18, not 2004, things have changed, they need 900 pilots a year plus all of us happy to work extra just to keep this ship moving, along with Delta and United needing the same amount of pilots. The economics have changed and we need to start playing ball like we are the freaking 1927 Yankees, not 1962 Mets.

Al Czervik
01-04-2018, 11:41 AM
Why are so many pilots so uninformed? We are not giving up anything. If we vote yes nothing will change with scheduling. If we vote no then nothing will change with scheduling. Our current JCBA has holes big enough to drive a truck through. If we vote yes we get 5:15, LOS, and set up a process to negotiate scheduling with mgt. if we vote no we get nothing, continue disputing the company and winning only 5% of grievances and put all our hopes on arbitration. Our best outcome in arbitration would probably be to meet with the company and mediate a solution. I know this isn't black and white and pilots have a hard time dealing with nuances. But voting no is not going to help us.

No offense, but it sounds like you may be the uninformed one.

Buzzlightyear
01-04-2018, 12:24 PM
Why are so many pilots so uninformed? We are not giving up anything. If we vote yes nothing will change with scheduling. If we vote no then nothing will change with scheduling. Our current JCBA has holes big enough to drive a truck through. If we vote yes we get 5:15, LOS, and set up a process to negotiate scheduling with mgt. if we vote no we get nothing, continue disputing the company and winning only 5% of grievances and put all our hopes on arbitration. Our best outcome in arbitration would probably be to meet with the company and mediate a solution. I know this isn't black and white and pilots have a hard time dealing with nuances. But voting no is not going to help us.
I don’t like the 5 day trips the company is talking about for starters.

Name User
01-04-2018, 12:28 PM
Well we are already going to have electronic notification as it's in the current contract apparently. "Just not implemented".

As for flying into days off min days off will go to around 15 from 10(?) now. I'm not sure how that will work but the junior guys will gain a bunch more days off, so there's that.

I'm actually kinda OK with being forced to working into days off but I'd like to see it pay 150% and you get another day off somewhere of your choosing. I'm fine with flexibility but we need to be paid for it.

I'm also under the impression that assignment of open time is supposed to change as well from the current method to no more passing. You get what you get. The passing thing was not kept in the new contract and will be gone regardless.

There are so many odd ball things in the contract that make it so convoluted to understand and implement...I would imagine if we had it streamlined into a more user friendly document we'd be able to cash that in for more money somewhere else.

I do also agree that the end result needs to be a net gain, but that doesn't mean you can't scrub some language if the intent of it isn't working like you wanted it to or doesn't add much value.

I'd like to see more QOL enhancements vs more money because our return on more money is only about $0.60 on the dollar after federal and state taxes are taken out.

SilverandSore
01-04-2018, 01:45 PM
$300 million in improvements and the give is we codify the existing practices that continue either way. Electronic notification is already in the JCBA. I think there is more fear here than anything else. Either way, APA sucks for letting it get to this and we need professional negotiators.

aa73
01-04-2018, 01:53 PM
RA’s are nothing more than a paper (electronic) tiger.

FAR 117 works for us in this case. RA’d en route? Fatigue/don’t sign Fit for duty when you land... case closed. “Sorry, I’m only rested enough to work my original sequence.”

If every pilot did this, it would be fixed in a heart beat.

We’ve got the leverage, we just don’t use it. As long as pilots keep accepting RAs and at straight pay, voting Yes or No won’t change a thing, they’ll keep right on doing it.

Name User
01-04-2018, 01:58 PM
$300 million in improvements and the give is we codify the existing practices that continue either way. Electronic notification is already in the JCBA. I think there is more fear here than anything else. Either way, APA sucks for letting it get to this and we need professional negotiators.

Well the vast majority of that number is the min day pay. How much do you think we'll actually see of that? They'll just change the trips to have us work more. Do a CLT-LAX-CLT then add RDU-CLT on it. It's not like the trips will have five hours of credit in them.

Or they'll make it a LAX trip on one side and a CLT on another and split the flying and imbed them into trips, making the ability to avoid them harder.

I'm worried about where we'll end up. These kind of things can have unintended consequences.

Saabs
01-04-2018, 02:56 PM
Well the vast majority of that number is the min day pay. How much do you think we'll actually see of that? They'll just change the trips to have us work more. Do a CLT-LAX-CLT then add RDU-CLT on it. It's not like the trips will have five hours of credit in them.

Or they'll make it a LAX trip on one side and a CLT on another and split the flying and imbed them into trips, making the ability to avoid them harder.

I'm worried about where we'll end up. These kind of things can have unintended consequences.

I’m worried about my days off. 14-15 versus 10 for a lot of people. I want to fly my butt off while at work and have more days off. If the other big boys can so can we.

jcountry
01-04-2018, 03:56 PM
APA continues to amaze me.

-Just not in a good way.

AFTrainerGuy
01-04-2018, 04:20 PM
I don’t like the 5 day trips the company is talking about for starters.

Mathematically I think this is overblown.

A 5 day trip with a sign in of 1200 on Day 1 and release on day 5 at 1200 is worth just about 27:24 (96/3.5). ACD would be 26:15. These “uncommutable trips” which they claim will have early shows (let’s say 0800 sign in Day 1) and late release (let’s say 2200 on Day 5) would pay almost 31:00 hours (108/3.5). That’s a lot of P&C over 26:15.

I think the 5 day thing is overblown. But even if some are built, you don’t think there are some who would like to be that productive? Heck, I’d take them and get 75 hours in 12-13 days.

With that said, I personally think the other Scheduling gives probably are more legitimate and need to be fully evaluated. I for one am glad we are taking a bit more time to evaluate this. Nothing is gone yet. With that said, I’m not sure I fully trust those tasked to do so. History is not in their favor.

My 2 cents... probably worth less

Laker24
01-04-2018, 04:35 PM
No offense, but it sounds like you may be the uninformed one.

None taken. The SMEs and negotiators claim this is a significant net gain. The Frear types are busy writing 10 page briefs on why it's a bad deal yet they don't even understand the deal. I don't think the CLT rep knows the difference brtween min day and average min day. He claimed we would have 50% 5 days and kept using the word "scary". It's embarrassingly amateurish. I'm sure Parker can't wait for section 6. This agreement will move the ball downfield.

Or we can pull a USAPA. Say no, hold our breath and demand delta plus20%. In 10 years we will be exactly where we are right now. These tough talkers from CLT and PHL. Check their track record. How they keep getting recycled is a mystery to me.

Al Czervik
01-04-2018, 06:01 PM
None taken. The SMEs and negotiators claim this is a significant net gain. The Frear types are busy writing 10 page briefs on why it's a bad deal yet they don't even understand the deal. I don't think the CLT rep knows the difference brtween min day and average min day. He claimed we would have 50% 5 days and kept using the word "scary". It's embarrassingly amateurish. I'm sure Parker can't wait for section 6. This agreement will move the ball downfield.

Or we can pull a USAPA. Say no, hold our breath and demand delta plus20%. In 10 years we will be exactly where we are right now. These tough talkers from CLT and PHL. Check their track record. How they keep getting recycled is a mystery to me.

Why would the company want the scheduling practices carve out?
Do you think the company will implement this when it’s cheaper not to? How has the company done so far with implementation?

mainlineAF
01-04-2018, 06:08 PM
Don’t know. About the first question.



You’re right, we didn’t have DFP’s at LUS. As far as I can tell we get our 10 contractual days off as DFP’s, and any other days off as just days off. I think they can fly us into non DFP days off, I’m not positive. I use litesaber to put a DFP behind every trip I have just in case.



You can be flown into a DFP. The only difference is if you get extended into a DFP they have to give you 24 hours off on your next trip. If your trip goes back into base after 24 hours they can put you back onto it. If it doesn’t fly through base you go into RO.

aa73
01-04-2018, 07:00 PM
Im not so sure I am in agreement with this AIP any more...too many red flags popping up.

Arado 234
01-04-2018, 07:58 PM
A Bad Decision Averted……for a Week



The Good, the Bad and the Ugly Regarding the Current Settlement Agreement


The BOD met hastily on January 3rd in a one-day session to vote on the global settlement agreement being sold to the membership by the President Carey, Vice President Hamel and Chief Negotiator Duma. The settlement affects LOS, Duty Rigs, Crew Scheduling protocols and many scheduling related grievances. The meeting was packed with drama, complete with dozens of LOS-NOW pilots picketing in front of APA headquarters and a board room packed with spectators.

Your MIA representatives have taken opposing views of this agreement with the Chairman voicing his unequivocal support for it while I have expressed my extreme misgivings that other than LOS this agreement does not produce any positive outcomes for our members. An objective view of the settlement is almost impossible due to the “spin” campaign President Carey has constructed in an effort to “sell” this agreement to the membership, even going as far as to heckle a Board member in open session at the meeting who opposed the agreement in a completely unprofessional manner.

After hours of debate and deliberation the “warts” with this hastily prepared agreement began to expose themselves and a large fraction of the BOD began expressing doubts regarding its approval. In order to keep it alive before it reached the floor for a vote (and most likely failed), the supporters of the agreement, mainly the ORD and MIA Chairmen and the ORD and DFW Vice-Chairmen, wisely pushed it off for a more thorough analysis and delayed its vote for another week.

Here is what lies in store for the membership if this agreement is passed from my point of view according to the notes I took during this debate and the Optimizer test run briefs given to the BOD last August.
First the “Good”:
- The LOS provision included as LOA 18-001, excludes many members who deserve LOS, mainly the legacy US Air Mid-Atlantic pilots, but is a big step forward in compensating many of our members who endured the longest furlough in our company’s history, and have returned to work as “new” employees and forced to work their way up the pay scales from the bottom with no recompense for their misfortune.
- The agreement also locks in LOS protection for future furloughed pilots, although the efficacy of this provision in today’s market, with an existing shortage of pilots, was debated as being needed more by the company for recruitment than needed by the union in case of possible furloughs.

Now for the possible “Bad”:
- The new Duty Rigs have been sold to the membership as a huge gain and “industry leading”. Unbelievable valuations have been attached to them by President Carey, possibly in an attempt to “sell” this agreement to the membership despite its obvious flaws. The truth is that in their present form, although they will greatly reduce the number of unproductive slash-trip sequences the Optimizer creates, the Duty Rigs will probably do little to improve our QOWL, and a lot to destroy it. (Remember that wide body sequences do NOT get “Optimized”). The bottom line is that Delta Duty rigs in the hands of American Airline’s management, will not necessarily result in Delta-like schedules and even Delta admits it wants to change some parts of their Duty Rigs! (Delta’s more pilot friendly management does not use an Optimizer). The fact is there has been VERY LITTLE IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS of these duty rigs by APA, merely an Optimizer test run, from which our Miami scheduling folks were intentionally prohibited from attending despite my protests. This test produced only ONE WEEK’s worth of schedule. There simply isn’t enough data to make accurate predictions about how the new Duty Rigs will affect us once the Optimizer is allowed to use and abuse us. Despite the cursory glance, some advocates, such as our MIA Chairman Billy Ray Read and APA President Dan Carey, are die-hard advocates of the new Duty Rigs. I believe that the new Rigs have promise, but as negotiated in their present form represent a truly bad deal for most of the membership, especially the generally more junior narrow-body pilots. Here’s why:



Over 55% of the total narrow-body flying hours (over 40 % of the sequences) will be 4 and 5-day trips (Remember the A300 does not fly 5-day trips so 4 is the longest that can be scheduled). This contrasts to today’s schedule on the 737 in which some months contain just a few percent of 5-day trips or as little as NO 5-day trips. The majority of our narrow-body flying will be shifted to longer trips. This might seem to be a good thing to some at first glance, but please read on:

Most of these longer sequences will NOT be commutable on the front end, the back end or both ends. This portends badly for the almost 50% of our pilots that are commuters. They usually bid longer trips to minimize their wasted time in traveling to and from the airport. Many more of them will now have to purchase hotel rooms or rent crash pads to fly these longer trips.

The longer narrow-body trips will be constructed at the expense of the shorter trips, primarily the 3-day slash trips. Approximately 80% of these trips will be absorbed into the longer 5-day trips. Many of the turns and two-day trips will also be absorbed into the slash trips to minimize the company’s cost in paying the average calendar day. This portends poorly for the pilots who live locally or just prefer shorter trips since they will have less of them to choose from. It was entirely misleading to use the MIA-SEA-MIA 3-day slash trip as an example of how the Duty Rigs pay since there will probably be little to none of these sequences produced once the Optimizer runs these new Duty Rigs.

The longer trips are sometimes front-end loaded with flying and thus in greater risk of falling apart. This will leave our pilots, especially our narrow body pilots, at greater risk of being put into HUGE recovery obligation periods with sometimes more than 25 hours on the line, thus becoming glorified “reserve pilots” even though they may hold a line. The MIA Chairman erroneously stated that this Recovery Obligation can be unilaterally denied by a pilot. It cannot. By the JCBA it must be “mutually agreed to”, a liberty that Crew Scheduling RARELY if ever allows.

There is no real timeframe for enacting the new Duty Rigs and in fact the company is threatening to delay their implementation if we don’t float or use as PVDs for at least 30% of our total vacation. If the company DOESN’T implement the rigs by January 2019, the document stipulates a “penalty” of $1 million for the first month and then $1.5 million for every month thereafter (providing that we don’t change something to the rigs in the meantime in which case they may not have to pay the penalty at all). Please step back from this provision for a second and use some back-of-the-napkin math to figure out just how onerous this “penalty” ISN’T for the company. President Carey has stated we will need upwards of 170 more pilots to fly the schedule with the new Duty Rigs and is basing his estimates of the millions of dollars in value he is gaining for the membership on this number. However, if the company doesn’t hire the additional 170+ pilots at their present value of between $200,000 to $300,000 per pilot (aprox. $2.8 to $4.25 million per month) how can a $1.5 million a month be an adequate penalty? This ridiculous “penalty” speaks volumes about our Chief negotiator’s inability to include real incentives into the agreement and looks suspiciously like the open-ended implementation schedules, rife with loopholes, that make up the JCBA language. It seems we haven’t learned from our mistakes. There is a possibility the company WON’T hire the additional pilots and just figure out how to work the rest of the pilots harder. Either way it will come down to a financial decision for the company, as all decisions are for AA, and there is a good chance of not getting the rigs implemented at all before our next Section VI. It should be obvious by the preceding discussion that the rigs, as negotiated by APA in present form, are not yet ready for prime time and need to be further fleshed out.




Now for the “Ugly”:
The Crew Scheduling playbook known as the “Current Process for Filling of Open Time” and included in this agreement is a horrendous step backwards for our QOWL and only the “tip of the iceberg” of the liberties that CS will take from us if we sign this agreement. We are also obligated to release the company from “any and all claims, damages, or liability related to the “Filling of Open Time Dispute”” including the “use of the current process for filling of open time”. Exactly what does this mean?




This means the numerous open grievances against the company for the last 3 years of scheduling abuses will be paid at 50 cents on the dollar and will go away forever. So much for the “penalty” of having violated our contract in the first place! So much for ensuring there are sufficient penalties in place to prevent them from doing it again! So much for the efficacy of the grievance process! So much for the fact that these grievances probably only represent the small fraction of times Crew Scheduling was CAUGHT; they probably ACTUALLY violated the rules many more times than this and got away with it! Thus, the company is getting off at much less than 50 cents on the dollar for these violations!! This is an EXTREMELY poor precedent to set and will only encourage further Crew Scheduling abuses by Mr. Jewett and his band of merry schedulers in the future.

The Presidential grievances that attempt to collect repeated violations of the same contractual provisions into the umbrella of a “Presidential Grievance” and expedite their decision on a “cite and precedent” basis will be “withdrawn with prejudice” until some future time with no decisions being made or penalties being paid. We will not be able to grieve these violations again. However, we may be able to pull the original grievances out for hearing at some future date if talks completely break down. In the meantime, we are in “limbo” regarding these contractual violations. Really? Remember that these grievances relate to Crew Scheduling’s repeated abuse of over 14 contractual provisions, sometimes going back over 4 years, and affect a wide variety of contractual abuses such as our pay protection for being bypassed, advanced notification of 30-hour rest breaks, failure to contact us for proffering trips, assigning make-up flying, proffering sequences IAW with 15L. and many more violations. These grievances are ESSENTIAL in preserving our QOWL. They are essential in protecting the contractual protections we put in place in the JCBA. Their value to our contract cannot be put in dollar terms. They are effectively being “given” back to the company as a gift for LOS and questionable Duty Rigs!

We will no longer be able to get pilots paid for the Crew Scheduling errors in the assignment of open time flying process (unless they violate whatever new rules the company establishes as the “current process”), and the company gets to unilaterally write this new “playbook” when they benchmark what the current processes are. Thus, the hundreds of savvy pilots we are getting paid each year for noticing the CS errors in the assignment of open time flying will be drastically if not completely eliminated. We will now have to catch them violating their own “playbook”, if we can even figure out what that playbook is………

The company and APA can’t even agree to the meaning of “current process”. As if the document that Crew Scheduling provided as its current play book is not bad enough, Crew Scheduling will meet with APA to tell us exactly what is meant by “current process”, benchmark whatever “wet dream” they concoct, and thus define the “current process” we will have to play by in the future. APA won’t even have the ability to refute the company’s claim that whatever Crew Scheduling invents as their “current process” is really NOT the current process. It will effectively allow them to go beyond the abuses that are already occurring. In my opinion this is a flat-out capitulation which allows the company to make ALL the rules. Good luck in grieving an abuse since the resulting process won’t even be in the JCBA! This is certainly worse than the original process we “agreed to” in bankruptcy!

Your ability to grieve contractual abuses by Crew Scheduling related to 4C., 15L. and 15J. (most of the scheduling grievances that have been filed and the subject matter contained in the Crew Scheduling playbook) will be suspended until DOTC/RAS is implemented (that means until we agree on electronic “push” notification and whatever order of assignment process and callback times the company defines as current process). You might be able to grieve the fact that Crew Scheduling isn’t following their own playbook, however your ability to do this successfully would be in question since there IS no contract violation if there is NO CONTRACT to grieve in the first place. However, rest assured there is an interim process put in place. Vice President Hamel can file a grievance on your behalf if he considers an issue of “sufficient importance” to warrant a grievance regarding the agreement he helped devise. Let's invent a new term and call it a "Vice-Presidential Grievance". However, the issue will be heard by a single arbitrator whose decision will be binding. So much for the contractual protections given in Sections 21, 22 and 23. How often do you think THAT expensive process will happen? But never fear! You will still be able to grieve whatever portions of the contract the “current process for the filling of open time” does NOT affect IAW the JCBA Sections 21, 22, and 23!

The “Current Process for the Filling of Open Time” document which we were provided with as an appendix to the agreement the President and Negotiator Duma want us to approve, is not in contractual language, rife with contractual violations, not negotiated with “notes” to determine what the “intent” of vague provisions are, and not going to be included in the contract per this agreement. It is being portrayed as a temporary process, but in the absence of an agreement regarding the implementation of DOTC/RAS IAW with Mr. Jewett’s wishes, will be the ONLY scheduling playbook we have, possibly until the end of our next Section VI negotiations. I have already explained how this document doesn’t even fully describe the current process for the filling of open time and that Crew Scheduling will be able to dictate this process to us as they “clarify and explain” what this really means. I counted over a dozen violations on page one of this 7-page document alone!! How bad will it get when Crew Scheduling reveals to us how they REALLY schedule us and make that the “benchmark” process for our scheduling until we can agree on a new process? Of course, this doesn’t seem to matter to our MIA Chairman, who never went through Contract Compliance Training, never served as a Contract Compliance Officer, and has demonstrated only a vague knowledge of the contract in his year as our Chairman. To him the contract sometimes seems like an inconvenience.




It is the duty of this union to “protect the individual and collective rights of the members”, and essential to that right is the right to settle individual and collective grievances, yet this agreement abrogates a large portion of our ability to do this through the grievance process, sells back grievances essential to the quality of work life of our members for practically nothing, and suspends our ability to utilize our grievance process for a large portion of our contract.
It is the duty of this union to “continue to improve the rates of compensation, benefits, pension, HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKING CONDITIONS [emphasis added]” of the members yet this agreement improves the rates of pay for some at the expense of the hours of employment and working conditions of the vast majority.
I hope that I have explained to you in sufficient detail just why I can’t support this agreement. The political theater that has surrounded this debate on C&R, the MIA Chairman’s Base Blast, the picketing of APA Headquarters by the LOS crowd, the countless phone calls, emails and text Blasts that I and many of the BOD members in opposition to this agreement have received regarding this issue, some of them verbally abusive, hasn’t helped in facilitating a truly objective debate.
The fact that an ambitious President, a “green” Chief negotiator and a Navy JAG legal counsel even allowed this agreement to reach the floor in the first place, given its inherently divisive nature which plays one part of our membership off against the other, does not portend well for us as Section VI looms over the horizon. The fact that many of our hard-working SME’s and committee members at APA labored over the holidays to get “into the weeds” on these issues at a personal sacrifice to themselves and their families, also concluded that this was truly a bad agreement, and were not allowed to speak-out or provide their input to the debate does not portend well for the leadership we have in place at APA and where we are heading.
Sincerely,
Ed Sicher
MIA Vice

PRS Guitars
01-04-2018, 08:21 PM
...

I think the 5 day thing is overblown. But even if some are built, you don’t think there are some who would like to be that productive? Heck, I’d take them and get 75 hours in 12-13 days.

With that said, I personally think the other Scheduling gives probably are more legitimate and need to be fully evaluated. I for one am glad we are taking a bit more time to evaluate this. Nothing is gone yet. With that said, I’m not sure I fully trust those tasked to do so. History is not in their favor.

My 2 cents... probably worth less

I’m with you, I think these guys are using the 5 day thing as a debating point. ACD is an improvement, and it’s silly not to concede that. With that said the other concerns are valid, but when they use these other debating tactics they lose some credibility in my eyes.

Route66
01-05-2018, 01:46 AM
A Bad Decision Averted……for a Week



The Good, the Bad and the Ugly Regarding the Current Settlement Agreement


The BOD met hastily on January 3rd in a one-day session to vote on the global settlement agreement being sold to the membership by the President Carey, Vice President Hamel and Chief Negotiator Duma. The settlement affects LOS, Duty Rigs, Crew Scheduling protocols and many scheduling related grievances. The meeting was packed with drama, complete with dozens of LOS-NOW pilots picketing in front of APA headquarters and a board room packed with spectators.

Your MIA representatives have taken opposing views of this agreement with the Chairman voicing his unequivocal support for it while I have expressed my extreme misgivings that other than LOS this agreement does not produce any positive outcomes for our members. An objective view of the settlement is almost impossible due to the “spin” campaign President Carey has constructed in an effort to “sell” this agreement to the membership, even going as far as to heckle a Board member in open session at the meeting who opposed the agreement in a completely unprofessional manner.

After hours of debate and deliberation the “warts” with this hastily prepared agreement began to expose themselves and a large fraction of the BOD began expressing doubts regarding its approval. In order to keep it alive before it reached the floor for a vote (and most likely failed), the supporters of the agreement, mainly the ORD and MIA Chairmen and the ORD and DFW Vice-Chairmen, wisely pushed it off for a more thorough analysis and delayed its vote for another week.

Here is what lies in store for the membership if this agreement is passed from my point of view according to the notes I took during this debate and the Optimizer test run briefs given to the BOD last August.
First the “Good”:
- The LOS provision included as LOA 18-001, excludes many members who deserve LOS, mainly the legacy US Air Mid-Atlantic pilots, but is a big step forward in compensating many of our members who endured the longest furlough in our company’s history, and have returned to work as “new” employees and forced to work their way up the pay scales from the bottom with no recompense for their misfortune.
- The agreement also locks in LOS protection for future furloughed pilots, although the efficacy of this provision in today’s market, with an existing shortage of pilots, was debated as being needed more by the company for recruitment than needed by the union in case of possible furloughs.

Now for the possible “Bad”:
- The new Duty Rigs have been sold to the membership as a huge gain and “industry leading”. Unbelievable valuations have been attached to them by President Carey, possibly in an attempt to “sell” this agreement to the membership despite its obvious flaws. The truth is that in their present form, although they will greatly reduce the number of unproductive slash-trip sequences the Optimizer creates, the Duty Rigs will probably do little to improve our QOWL, and a lot to destroy it. (Remember that wide body sequences do NOT get “Optimized”). The bottom line is that Delta Duty rigs in the hands of American Airline’s management, will not necessarily result in Delta-like schedules and even Delta admits it wants to change some parts of their Duty Rigs! (Delta’s more pilot friendly management does not use an Optimizer). The fact is there has been VERY LITTLE IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS of these duty rigs by APA, merely an Optimizer test run, from which our Miami scheduling folks were intentionally prohibited from attending despite my protests. This test produced only ONE WEEK’s worth of schedule. There simply isn’t enough data to make accurate predictions about how the new Duty Rigs will affect us once the Optimizer is allowed to use and abuse us. Despite the cursory glance, some advocates, such as our MIA Chairman Billy Ray Read and APA President Dan Carey, are die-hard advocates of the new Duty Rigs. I believe that the new Rigs have promise, but as negotiated in their present form represent a truly bad deal for most of the membership, especially the generally more junior narrow-body pilots. Here’s why:



Over 55% of the total narrow-body flying hours (over 40 % of the sequences) will be 4 and 5-day trips (Remember the A300 does not fly 5-day trips so 4 is the longest that can be scheduled). This contrasts to today’s schedule on the 737 in which some months contain just a few percent of 5-day trips or as little as NO 5-day trips. The majority of our narrow-body flying will be shifted to longer trips. This might seem to be a good thing to some at first glance, but please read on:

Most of these longer sequences will NOT be commutable on the front end, the back end or both ends. This portends badly for the almost 50% of our pilots that are commuters. They usually bid longer trips to minimize their wasted time in traveling to and from the airport. Many more of them will now have to purchase hotel rooms or rent crash pads to fly these longer trips.

The longer narrow-body trips will be constructed at the expense of the shorter trips, primarily the 3-day slash trips. Approximately 80% of these trips will be absorbed into the longer 5-day trips. Many of the turns and two-day trips will also be absorbed into the slash trips to minimize the company’s cost in paying the average calendar day. This portends poorly for the pilots who live locally or just prefer shorter trips since they will have less of them to choose from. It was entirely misleading to use the MIA-SEA-MIA 3-day slash trip as an example of how the Duty Rigs pay since there will probably be little to none of these sequences produced once the Optimizer runs these new Duty Rigs.

The longer trips are sometimes front-end loaded with flying and thus in greater risk of falling apart. This will leave our pilots, especially our narrow body pilots, at greater risk of being put into HUGE recovery obligation periods with sometimes more than 25 hours on the line, thus becoming glorified “reserve pilots” even though they may hold a line. The MIA Chairman erroneously stated that this Recovery Obligation can be unilaterally denied by a pilot. It cannot. By the JCBA it must be “mutually agreed to”, a liberty that Crew Scheduling RARELY if ever allows.

There is no real timeframe for enacting the new Duty Rigs and in fact the company is threatening to delay their implementation if we don’t float or use as PVDs for at least 30% of our total vacation. If the company DOESN’T implement the rigs by January 2019, the document stipulates a “penalty” of $1 million for the first month and then $1.5 million for every month thereafter (providing that we don’t change something to the rigs in the meantime in which case they may not have to pay the penalty at all). Please step back from this provision for a second and use some back-of-the-napkin math to figure out just how onerous this “penalty” ISN’T for the company. President Carey has stated we will need upwards of 170 more pilots to fly the schedule with the new Duty Rigs and is basing his estimates of the millions of dollars in value he is gaining for the membership on this number. However, if the company doesn’t hire the additional 170+ pilots at their present value of between $200,000 to $300,000 per pilot (aprox. $2.8 to $4.25 million per month) how can a $1.5 million a month be an adequate penalty? This ridiculous “penalty” speaks volumes about our Chief negotiator’s inability to include real incentives into the agreement and looks suspiciously like the open-ended implementation schedules, rife with loopholes, that make up the JCBA language. It seems we haven’t learned from our mistakes. There is a possibility the company WON’T hire the additional pilots and just figure out how to work the rest of the pilots harder. Either way it will come down to a financial decision for the company, as all decisions are for AA, and there is a good chance of not getting the rigs implemented at all before our next Section VI. It should be obvious by the preceding discussion that the rigs, as negotiated by APA in present form, are not yet ready for prime time and need to be further fleshed out.




Now for the “Ugly”:
The Crew Scheduling playbook known as the “Current Process for Filling of Open Time” and included in this agreement is a horrendous step backwards for our QOWL and only the “tip of the iceberg” of the liberties that CS will take from us if we sign this agreement. We are also obligated to release the company from “any and all claims, damages, or liability related to the “Filling of Open Time Dispute”” including the “use of the current process for filling of open time”. Exactly what does this mean?




This means the numerous open grievances against the company for the last 3 years of scheduling abuses will be paid at 50 cents on the dollar and will go away forever. So much for the “penalty” of having violated our contract in the first place! So much for ensuring there are sufficient penalties in place to prevent them from doing it again! So much for the efficacy of the grievance process! So much for the fact that these grievances probably only represent the small fraction of times Crew Scheduling was CAUGHT; they probably ACTUALLY violated the rules many more times than this and got away with it! Thus, the company is getting off at much less than 50 cents on the dollar for these violations!! This is an EXTREMELY poor precedent to set and will only encourage further Crew Scheduling abuses by Mr. Jewett and his band of merry schedulers in the future.

The Presidential grievances that attempt to collect repeated violations of the same contractual provisions into the umbrella of a “Presidential Grievance” and expedite their decision on a “cite and precedent” basis will be “withdrawn with prejudice” until some future time with no decisions being made or penalties being paid. We will not be able to grieve these violations again. However, we may be able to pull the original grievances out for hearing at some future date if talks completely break down. In the meantime, we are in “limbo” regarding these contractual violations. Really? Remember that these grievances relate to Crew Scheduling’s repeated abuse of over 14 contractual provisions, sometimes going back over 4 years, and affect a wide variety of contractual abuses such as our pay protection for being bypassed, advanced notification of 30-hour rest breaks, failure to contact us for proffering trips, assigning make-up flying, proffering sequences IAW with 15L. and many more violations. These grievances are ESSENTIAL in preserving our QOWL. They are essential in protecting the contractual protections we put in place in the JCBA. Their value to our contract cannot be put in dollar terms. They are effectively being “given” back to the company as a gift for LOS and questionable Duty Rigs!

We will no longer be able to get pilots paid for the Crew Scheduling errors in the assignment of open time flying process (unless they violate whatever new rules the company establishes as the “current process”), and the company gets to unilaterally write this new “playbook” when they benchmark what the current processes are. Thus, the hundreds of savvy pilots we are getting paid each year for noticing the CS errors in the assignment of open time flying will be drastically if not completely eliminated. We will now have to catch them violating their own “playbook”, if we can even figure out what that playbook is………

The company and APA can’t even agree to the meaning of “current process”. As if the document that Crew Scheduling provided as its current play book is not bad enough, Crew Scheduling will meet with APA to tell us exactly what is meant by “current process”, benchmark whatever “wet dream” they concoct, and thus define the “current process” we will have to play by in the future. APA won’t even have the ability to refute the company’s claim that whatever Crew Scheduling invents as their “current process” is really NOT the current process. It will effectively allow them to go beyond the abuses that are already occurring. In my opinion this is a flat-out capitulation which allows the company to make ALL the rules. Good luck in grieving an abuse since the resulting process won’t even be in the JCBA! This is certainly worse than the original process we “agreed to” in bankruptcy!

Your ability to grieve contractual abuses by Crew Scheduling related to 4C., 15L. and 15J. (most of the scheduling grievances that have been filed and the subject matter contained in the Crew Scheduling playbook) will be suspended until DOTC/RAS is implemented (that means until we agree on electronic “push” notification and whatever order of assignment process and callback times the company defines as current process). You might be able to grieve the fact that Crew Scheduling isn’t following their own playbook, however your ability to do this successfully would be in question since there IS no contract violation if there is NO CONTRACT to grieve in the first place. However, rest assured there is an interim process put in place. Vice President Hamel can file a grievance on your behalf if he considers an issue of “sufficient importance” to warrant a grievance regarding the agreement he helped devise. Let's invent a new term and call it a "Vice-Presidential Grievance". However, the issue will be heard by a single arbitrator whose decision will be binding. So much for the contractual protections given in Sections 21, 22 and 23. How often do you think THAT expensive process will happen? But never fear! You will still be able to grieve whatever portions of the contract the “current process for the filling of open time” does NOT affect IAW the JCBA Sections 21, 22, and 23!

The “Current Process for the Filling of Open Time” document which we were provided with as an appendix to the agreement the President and Negotiator Duma want us to approve, is not in contractual language, rife with contractual violations, not negotiated with “notes” to determine what the “intent” of vague provisions are, and not going to be included in the contract per this agreement. It is being portrayed as a temporary process, but in the absence of an agreement regarding the implementation of DOTC/RAS IAW with Mr. Jewett’s wishes, will be the ONLY scheduling playbook we have, possibly until the end of our next Section VI negotiations. I have already explained how this document doesn’t even fully describe the current process for the filling of open time and that Crew Scheduling will be able to dictate this process to us as they “clarify and explain” what this really means. I counted over a dozen violations on page one of this 7-page document alone!! How bad will it get when Crew Scheduling reveals to us how they REALLY schedule us and make that the “benchmark” process for our scheduling until we can agree on a new process? Of course, this doesn’t seem to matter to our MIA Chairman, who never went through Contract Compliance Training, never served as a Contract Compliance Officer, and has demonstrated only a vague knowledge of the contract in his year as our Chairman. To him the contract sometimes seems like an inconvenience.




It is the duty of this union to “protect the individual and collective rights of the members”, and essential to that right is the right to settle individual and collective grievances, yet this agreement abrogates a large portion of our ability to do this through the grievance process, sells back grievances essential to the quality of work life of our members for practically nothing, and suspends our ability to utilize our grievance process for a large portion of our contract.
It is the duty of this union to “continue to improve the rates of compensation, benefits, pension, HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKING CONDITIONS [emphasis added]” of the members yet this agreement improves the rates of pay for some at the expense of the hours of employment and working conditions of the vast majority.
I hope that I have explained to you in sufficient detail just why I can’t support this agreement. The political theater that has surrounded this debate on C&R, the MIA Chairman’s Base Blast, the picketing of APA Headquarters by the LOS crowd, the countless phone calls, emails and text Blasts that I and many of the BOD members in opposition to this agreement have received regarding this issue, some of them verbally abusive, hasn’t helped in facilitating a truly objective debate.
The fact that an ambitious President, a “green” Chief negotiator and a Navy JAG legal counsel even allowed this agreement to reach the floor in the first place, given its inherently divisive nature which plays one part of our membership off against the other, does not portend well for us as Section VI looms over the horizon. The fact that many of our hard-working SME’s and committee members at APA labored over the holidays to get “into the weeds” on these issues at a personal sacrifice to themselves and their families, also concluded that this was truly a bad agreement, and were not allowed to speak-out or provide their input to the debate does not portend well for the leadership we have in place at APA and where we are heading.
Sincerely,
Ed Sicher
MIA Vice

HA HA HA! HAPPY NEW YEAR! Tail wags the dog.....as usual.

jcountry
01-05-2018, 02:27 AM
Damn...

Would someone please let base reps know what’s TLDR means?!?!

(I bet not 3 people at this airline read all that bloviation.)

Someone really needs to tell these fellers about brevity being the soul of wit. Missed that memo.

Name User
01-05-2018, 06:04 AM
Damn...

Would someone please let base reps know what’s TLDR means?!?!

(I bet not 3 people at this airline read all that bloviation.)

Someone really needs to tell these fellers about brevity being the soul of wit. Missed that memo.
I stopped after he wrote A300 instead of A320. If they don't know what airplanes we fly how can they know how to interpret a complicated contract?

Al Czervik
01-05-2018, 06:07 AM
A good “soup to nuts” from DFW:

DFW UPDATE

4 January 2018



Negotiations Update

It has been a few weeks since my last message in which I tried to lay out in complete detail precisely what the issues were that created such a stir over the holiday. Click here to review that message.

The short version is that the company accidentally created a problem that they then tried to solve using mechanisms outside our contract. Our fight was to defend our contract and compel compliance. We achieved that immediate goal – the premium pay arrangement was not what I would like our contract to eventually look like, but it was compliant with our existing contract where possible and variations from our contract were mutually agreed to (which is how events like this are SUPPOSED to be resolved).

But as Paul Harvey used to say, here is “the rest of the story……”



Length of Service (LOS)

Thousands of our pilots had their careers destroyed or severely damaged by the economic fallout of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. These pilots had either left the military or resigned from other flying jobs in response to American’s recruitment efforts, or were caught up in the effects of a merger that came at just the wrong moment in history. Many of these pilots spent more than a decade on furlough, and many returned to probation pay, and most are still suffering the economic impact. We were able to obtain a 2-year LOS adjustment in 2014 that, along with the general pay rate increases achieved in the JCBA, provided some relief, but more remains to be done.

Now that the company has put the economic uncertainty of the bankruptcy/merger behind them, it is time to finish the job. This management team has spent $11 billion buying back stock over the last 2 years, is spending a fortune to build a brand new Headquarters Office complex, and even gave outgoing executives multi-million dollar packages when they jumped ship to become our competitors.

We stepped up and helped cover the holiday schedule after management’s screw up – what better way to say “thank you” than by rewarding the loyalty of these junior pilots who endured the hardships and still returned to make this a better company?

Duty Rigs

It has been 30 years since our duty rigs were changed to base “G-time” on a minimum and average number of hours “per duty period”. That duty rig allows very inefficient scheduling (pilots on the road for 3 days for barely more than 10 hours of pay in some cases), which in turn has led to increasing numbers of fatigue calls (pilots can only work 20 day months – often involving all night flying – for so long before the human body demands a rest). The fatigue calls result in disruption to flight schedules and increases manning costs. In other words, WE want a change to improve our quality of life, AND the economics make a change attractive to management as well.

The APA Scheduling and Negotiating Committees have been working for more than a year to identify the best solution and have been in discussions that seemed headed toward a mutually beneficial change to basing “G-time” on the number of Calendar Days in a sequence, not the number of “duty periods” in a sequence. It made sense for both sides; all that was left was to iron out the specifics.



So, what’s the hold-up?

Rather than conclude these mutually beneficial talks to improve our out-of-date duty rigs in a collaborative manner, and instead of simply saying “thanks for stepping up over the holidays” by solving the LOS issue once and for all, we were disappointed last week to discover that management has decided to hold these issues hostage.

Here is the ultimate irony – we started this fight in an attempt to enforce compliance with our contract, but management’s demand in exchange for LOS and Duty Rig improvements is:

· That we settle a large number of individual grievances at a discount,

· That we withdraw (with no right to refile) roughly a dozen Presidential Grievances over systemic contract violations,

· That we forever waive our rights to claims arising from those grievances (in effecting, allowing the violations we were protesting to continue with no ability to continue protesting), AND

· That we allow the company to impose use their “current scheduling practices” without challenging whether those “practices” are compliant with our contract.

The full details are on the bottom of this message if you want to read them, but the bottom line is that we started out defending our premium pay provisions and could end up giving up contractual protections in our scheduling and sequence protection sections instead.

So, what’s next?

I said this was ironic, didn’t I?

APA has spent the last year restructuring our legal department, hiring 5 new staff attorneys, nearly doubling the size of our Contract Administrator staff, and purchasing and installing tracking software to better organize our processing of grievances. Some have pointed to the slow pace of grievance resolution, but it’s hard to run at full throttle while doing an engine overhaul. Even so, is the slow pace of the legal system a valid reason to simply accept “what the company is doing” and move on? This restructuring has taken time, but as our new lawyers come up to speed, our ability to actually pursue these grievances will spool up quickly. Perhaps THAT is why the company is tying these popular items (LOS and Calendar Day) to the demand that we drop our grievances and quit filing new ones. Do we really want to teach management that all they have to do is overload our grievance system and we will eventually just let them do it their way after all? That, to me, seems to be a path we will regret very quickly.

This week, the Board gave the package back to the Negotiating Committee to do some additional work. We will continue to try to get to an acceptable package.

If management refuses to do the right thing on LOS and the mutually beneficial thing over Calendar Day unless we give them what they want in return, the question will boil down to a judgment call as to whether the value of what we stand to gain is worth the price that is being demanded of us?

But why should we even be facing this choice? In his message sent a month ago, President Cary quoted Hemingway by saying that the only way to determine whether a man is trustworthy is to trust him. We were told that LOS and Calendar Day would follow if we would help AA cover the holiday schedule. We did our part – but now that we have done so, management has tied fulfilling their part of the bargain to significant additional demands not initially disclosed. Who acted in a trustworthy manner, and who did not?





DFW Domicile Chairman





Details, details, details (for those who want more – you deserve all the facts)

Here are a couple of key sections of the proposed “Global Settlement.” Pay close attention to what the words actually say:



DOTC/RAS (Filling of Open Time): In exchange for LOS credit and Rig improvements, paragraphs 1 and 2, herein, APA agrees that the Company shall have the right to utilize the Company’s Current Process for Filling of Open Time until the programming and implementation of DOTC/RAS is completed. APA hereby releases the Company from any and all claims, damages, or liability related to the “Filling of Open Time Dispute,” including, without limitation, the use of the current process for filling of open time and alleged failure to fully implement DOTC/RAS.

Active Presidential Grievances regarding Sections 4.C, 15.L and 15.J are hereby withdrawn with prejudice*, a list of which is appended hereto as Attachment 4.

APA, by and on behalf of all pilots, hereby waives and agrees to forever forgo, any and all claims included in the Filling Open Time Dispute, including claims that have been raised, or could have been raised, in the grievances listed on Attachments 4 and 5, except that nothing in this Agreement prevents future grievances or claims related to the filling of open time after implementation of DOTC/RAS.

Note: withdrawing “with prejudice” means withdrawing with no right to re-file at a later date.

Here is a list from the spreadsheet (referenced above as Attachment 5) of presidential grievances of the subjects, and of the contract sections affected should we agree to this demand.

a. Grievance 14-019 - Pick-up provisions and monthly DFPs. The Company has failed to implement four sub-paragraphs namely § 15.L.4.b, c, d, and f; failed to program and implement § 15.D.3.q. so that DFPs run from midnight to midnight and there are a minimum of ten (10) calendar days off. 15.L.4

b. Grievance 15-043 - Improperly bypassing pilots for OG or Premium Sequences on the grounds that the pilot needed a 30 in 168 rest break. The Company is not calculating the pilots’ rest periods properly. 15.L.8

c. Grievance 16-001 - Assigning Long Call reserve pilots flying on the day following a DFP on which the pilot performed voluntary flying without the required twelve hours notice. 15.J.1, 15.J.2

d. Grievance 16-056 - Improperly notifying reserve pilots of 30 hour required rest breaks 15.J.1, 15.J.2

e. Grievance 16-061 - For failing to contact pilots to offer a sequence because they are on a trip. 15.L.4.c.1

f. Grievance 16-163 - Bypassing certain pilots in make-up, denying pilots pay, and awarding make-up flying out of seniority order. Crew Scheduling refuses to contact pilots in make-up if the pilot is on a trip or on a rest period (even though the pilot has requested contact while in a rest period) then assigns the flying to other junior pilots. 15.L.4

g. Grievance 16-168 - Improperly assigning replacement flying. 4.C (talk about a catch-all - we could potentially no longer be able to grieve "improperly assigned replacement flying" – whatever the company may claim that to mean in the future)

h. Grievance 17-088 - Improperly bypassing pilots for OG or Premium Sequences on the grounds that the pilot needed a 30 in 168 rest break. The Company is not calculating the pilots’ rest periods properly 15.L.4, 15.J.8.a, 15.C.4, 15.I

i. Grievance 17-114 - Improperly requiring pilots into replacement flying obligations to recover pay for trips when not required by Section 4 C. 4.C.7.b, 4.C.7.c

j. Grievance 17-115 - Assigning replacement flying that is beyond one (1) hour of the cancelled sequence value 4.C.6.a.1

k. Grievance 17-146 - Unilaterally implementing a corporate policy governing crew scheduling, imposes non-negotiated obligations/terms upon the pilots vis-à-vis scheduling sequences and causes pilots to lose sequences that they are otherwise contractually entitled to receive. 15.L.4, 15.L.8

These grievances would be withdrawn and nobody affected by these grievances would be paid anything at all. Pilots who are affected in the future by these violations will likely have no recourse.

In addition, the crew schedule "current practices" we would agree to accept include these provisions that violate the current contract:

a. Assigning the highest time open trips to RO pilots without attempting to match either the number of hours "owed" or the footprint of the original sequence
b. Assigning RO flying even if that RO flying conflicts with duty free periods, including duty free periods that cannot be moved into the future (i.e. involuntarily erasing a DFP when there is no place to move it to)
c. Assigning RO flying that exceeds the monthly max or IMAX (a jobs issue)
d. Accepting the company's refusal to implement out-of-base pick up in the opposite division (i.e. preventing pilots in an international bid status from using out of base pick up to access an open domestic sequence)
e. Allowing crew schedule to ignore the “inverse assign” language and simply resort to reassignment “with the first person they contact from the list of all pilots qualified for the sequence at base.”

All of these changes will result in some pilots being forced to fly sequences which they were not obligated to fly under the contract, and other pilots desiring to pick-up being denied access to those trips because the trips got forced onto someone else. No estimate has been given as to the economic value of these changes.

Management is demanding that we waive our right to file new grievances over the issues in the lists above, and they would be able to use their unilaterally written (and contractually non-compliant) scheduling practices “until the programming of DOTC/RAS is completed as agreed to and implemented.”

If the company’s past performance on programming and implementation is any guide, they would likely be able to use their contractually non-compliant “scheduling practices” for a very long time. We technically could file grievances over the company’s failure to follow these practices, but since the agreement lets them define what those practices are, it would be VERY difficult to win.

Remember that all of the work rules we love to complain about got into our contract during some past negotiation where we focused on the pay rates and not the rest of the contract. Management loves to dangle things we REALLY want, but tie them to things we would normally never consider accepting. Do not let management whipsaw your emotions with false deadlines and “take it or leave it” ultimatums. This emotional rollercoaster is just a warm-up for the real negotiations that are coming. The path to success is rarely a straight line.

viper548
01-05-2018, 07:14 AM
Keep in mind these domicile reps are not likely to benefit much from LOS or ACD. I don't think any of the reps would get LOS. I doubt any of them fly the slash 3 day trips that pay 11-12 hours. They only stand to lose from this agreement as it is likely that there will be some changes to the schedules. Keep in mind these guys are against virtual basing because it would take away some of their flying from the large bases. The junior pilot is not well represented by APA.

Laker24
01-05-2018, 07:23 AM
I stopped after he wrote A300 instead of A320. If they don't know what airplanes we fly how can they know how to interpret a complicated contract?

He draped a pirate flag over his microphone and apparently shouted down other members trying to speak. Sounds like a clown show. When 2020 rolls around the company is going to show up with the best lawyers in the business and we are going to have grown men carrying around pirate flags. Doesn't bode well for our next contract.

Al Czervik
01-05-2018, 09:08 AM
He draped a pirate flag over his microphone and apparently shouted down other members trying to speak. Sounds like a clown show. When 2020 rolls around the company is going to show up with the best lawyers in the business and we are going to have grown men carrying around pirate flags. Doesn't bode well for our next contract.

“Mr Glass, we’re here FOR ALL YOUR BOOTY ARRRRRRRR.”

450knotOffice
01-05-2018, 09:22 AM
So, instead of nitpicking a typo (which all of us are guilty of), and mentioning TLDR, which is ridiculous for supposedly educated grownups, how about addressing the valid concerns and numerous very red flags he and the DFW Rep raise?

I, for one, would love improvements to our rigs, but not at the expense of giving away the entire farm for it.

jcountry
01-05-2018, 11:42 AM
He draped a pirate flag over his microphone and apparently shouted down other members trying to speak. Sounds like a clown show. When 2020 rolls around the company is going to show up with the best lawyers in the business and we are going to have grown men carrying around pirate flags. Doesn't bode well for our next contract.

Seriously?

Anyone pulling that nonsesnse needs to be recalled. That’s amazing.

jcountry
01-05-2018, 11:43 AM
So, instead of nitpicking a typo (which all of us are guilty of), and mentioning TLDR, which is ridiculous for supposedly educated grownups, how about addressing the valid concerns and numerous very red flags he and the DFW Rep raise?

I, for one, would love improvements to our rigs, but not at the expense of giving away the entire farm for it.

TLDR, Bro.

sumwherelse
01-05-2018, 04:26 PM
TLDR, Bro.

It is abhorant to me that anyone would even consider this deal. I understand the LOS argument but at what cost?? Why are we even considering allowing the company to continue practices that are a direct violation of the contract. We should have gotten LOS AND compliance! Instead we are ok with LOS and complete capitulation on our QOL issues, WHY? Explain to me again why taking one step forward and two steps back is ok??

I have volunteered over and over again in this union and as a third lister have repeatedly been ignored. I can not stand by and watch this surrender now to fight later mentality dominate my career. This has to stop!

Dolphinflyer
01-05-2018, 06:00 PM
TLDR, Bro.

Too long to read?

It's only your career Skippy.

There is a lot of subject material and scheduling landmines in the agreement that can't be covered in two sentence bullet points for a Powerpoint Slide.

Let the adults comprehend the material while you catch up with the Kardashians.

And yes, I had to look up what TLDR meant. Some of the abbreviations are good descriptions for todays world. This one just highlights how stupid one can be and it's amazing someone here would embrace it and criticize the APA about a summary.

Carlsbad
01-05-2018, 06:55 PM
Why do we give up min duty day to get min calendar day? We should have both. We have red eye three days that have four duty periods and pay over 20 hrs.

Cheddar
01-06-2018, 03:27 AM
I know many on here don’t like TW for good reason, but like him or not - he’s well thought out and doesn’t shoot from the hip. I’ve had a surprisingly long email exchange with him about the AIP, in which at first I wasn’t happy because we were ‘giving away’ stuff to help the company, but then came around to Andy W’s position of test running everything before section 6. Tom was very analytical, but held his cards. He said he’d not been privy to all the info from the NC (how are BOD members kept in the dark???) and liked many things about the AIP, but he had ‘concerns’ about the CS gives.

After hearing (and getting confirmation) that EVERY NC (except the chairman) and National CCC was AGAINST the AIP, I now throw up my hands. I have met a few of our new NC members, and I trust one implicitly - the fact that he is a H-E double hockeysticks no (on the CS gives) has swung me again!

There is a lot of political posturing, and many reputations are on the line. After reading the available language, listening to people I trust both for and against, I think we are about to make a catastrophic decision with the CS gives. I desperately want better rigs, LOS for many of my squadron mates and all of the benefits - but as others have said, this is a turd.

What does baffle me though is that apparently our President agreed in principle to the AIP language and gave away all our leverage for... more vague and un-enforceable company promises? [emoji53]🤯

mainlineAF
01-06-2018, 05:16 AM
Where were all the negotiators and BOD members who are a no on this AIP back during the JCBA???

jcountry
01-06-2018, 11:58 AM
Too long to read?

It's only your career Skippy.

There is a lot of subject material and scheduling landmines in the agreement that can't be covered in two sentence bullet points for a Powerpoint Slide.

Let the adults comprehend the material while you catch up with the Kardashians.

And yes, I had to look up what TLDR meant. Some of the abbreviations are good descriptions for todays world. This one just highlights how stupid one can be and it's amazing someone here would embrace it and criticize the APA about a summary.

Double TLDR.....

Ohh, look! A fidget spinner!!

jcountry
01-06-2018, 12:01 PM
It is abhorant to me that anyone would even consider this deal. I understand the LOS argument but at what cost?? Why are we even considering allowing the company to continue practices that are a direct violation of the contract. We should have gotten LOS AND compliance! Instead we are ok with LOS and complete capitulation on our QOL issues, WHY? Explain to me again why taking one step forward and two steps back is ok??

I have volunteered over and over again in this union and as a third lister have repeatedly been ignored. I can not stand by and watch this surrender now to fight later mentality dominate my career. This has to stop!

Why not just run for office?

They can’t ignore you if you get elected. Any 3rd lister will definitely have my vote!

sumwherelse
01-06-2018, 12:44 PM
Why not just run for office?

They can’t ignore you if you get elected. Any 3rd lister will definitely have my vote!

Trust me. I have thought about it and am seriously considering it.

jcountry
01-06-2018, 01:25 PM
Trust me. I have thought about it and am seriously considering it.

Really, you should.

Maybe this roaring dumpster fire of a union would sack up and act straight if a couple of good guys started sniping and stole a couple of positions from the usual suspects.

It only takes a handful of real idiots to ruin a union. Currently, we have a double handful of absolute ****tards

Saabs
01-06-2018, 06:34 PM
Wtf does TLDR mean

Sliceback
01-06-2018, 07:11 PM
Too Long, Didn’t Read

Al Czervik
01-07-2018, 02:46 AM
Trust me. I have thought about it and am seriously considering it.

You’d have a lot of votes just being from 3rd lister demographic.

Al Czervik
01-07-2018, 02:47 AM
Wtf does TLDR mean

Can’t google stuff on your flip phone? ;)

jcountry
01-08-2018, 05:02 AM
The more I have thought about this AIP, the more angry it makes me.

APA just needs to be torn down and rebuilt. We seriously need to decertify these *******s and make sure no one in leadership now ever gets to serve again.

I mean for God’s sake!!!!! How does any union at any airline in this economic environment come away with concessions?

Decertify. Now!

Al Czervik
01-08-2018, 05:23 AM
The more I have thought about this AIP, the more angry it makes me.

APA just needs to be torn down and rebuilt. We seriously need to decertify these *******s and make sure no one in leadership now ever gets to serve again.

I mean for God’s sake!!!!! How does any union at any airline in this economic environment come away with concessions?

Decertify. Now!

There is young blood in the union. Common sense will prevail in time.

Route66
01-08-2018, 05:28 AM
The more I have thought about this AIP, the more angry it makes me.

APA just needs to be torn down and rebuilt. We seriously need to decertify these *******s and make sure no one in leadership now ever gets to serve again.

I mean for God’s sake!!!!! How does any union at any airline in this economic environment come away with concessions?

Decertify. Now!

You guys are all talk. Third listers I fly with, I encourage them to step forward to serve. They're too busy with their lives. They believe they are wasting there time and see no reason to pound their heads against the wall for nothing. I'm not saying this to be mean...I ask them all. The return vs. the "reward" isn't worth it. Secondly, as long as you have domicile voting as opposed to seniority block voting, you'll NEVER accomplish the goals you seek to effectuate. Unions are becoming a thing of the past.

sumwherelse
01-08-2018, 05:50 AM
You guys are all talk. Third listers I fly with, I encourage them to step forward to serve. They're too busy with their lives. They believe they are wasting there time and see no reason to pound their heads against the wall for nothing. I'm not saying this to be mean...I ask them all. The return vs. the "reward" isn't worth it. Secondly, as long as you have domicile voting as opposed to seniority block voting, you'll NEVER accomplish the goals you seek to effectuate. Unions are becoming a thing of the past.

Some of us who have stepped up get completely ignored. If your not in their circle your not in their group. Like I said before I have been volunteering for this union for years and I can’t even get a return “thanks but no thanks” email reaponse.

Route66
01-08-2018, 08:48 AM
Some of us who have stepped up get completely ignored. If your not in their circle your not in their group. Like I said before I have been volunteering for this union for years and I can’t even get a return “thanks but no thanks” email reaponse.

There's just another example. See, this is what I keep saying. I got a great call from Kimball Stone the other day just to touch base on an email I wrote. The union could care less.

jcountry
01-08-2018, 09:02 AM
Maybe block voting would be a good idea.

Maybe a structure in which each domicile gets an equal number of votes would work.....

Anything is better than this current nonsense!

Any kind of real negotiator would have sat down and said “guess what, you boys ****ed up and gave everyone the holidays off..... You don’t give us 100% forward progress, we will just send out a communication telling everyone to enjoy all their hard-earned time off, and we will see how that works out.”

They actually managed to turn this into a loss for everyone (except maybe the LOS guys.) Concessions? Seriously?

I didn’t expect much, but I sure didn’t expect any kind of concessions. My God. We pay dues for this rope-a-dope crap.

Route66
01-08-2018, 10:26 AM
Maybe block voting would be a good idea.

Maybe a structure in which each domicile gets an equal number of votes would work.....

Anything is better than this current nonsense!

Any kind of real negotiator would have sat down and said “guess what, you boys ****ed up and gave everyone the holidays off..... You don’t give us 100% forward progress, we will just send out a communication telling everyone to enjoy all their hard-earned time off, and we will see how that works out.”

They actually managed to turn this into a loss for everyone (except maybe the LOS guys.) Concessions? Seriously?

I didn’t expect much, but I sure didn’t expect any kind of concessions. My God. We pay dues for this rope-a-dope crap.

Block voting would be representationally more indicative of the cross-sections of the group. It seems to me a number of about 1:500 would work. So for our group it would be 30 reps. For a group this size that may be too big a number and 1:1000 would be better for larger groups it would seem.

Secondly, pilots would be PAID based upon their hire with the airline they worked with. If the LOS furloughs get their years the rest of us should get theirs. The LOS/LAA pilots are greedy. Everyone else suffers for them.

jcountry
01-08-2018, 01:40 PM
Block voting would be representationally more indicative of the cross-sections of the group. It seems to me a number of about 1:500 would work. So for our group it would be 30 reps. For a group this size that may be too big a number and 1:1000 would be better for larger groups it would seem.

Secondly, pilots would be PAID based upon their hire with the airline they worked with. If the LOS furloughs get their years the rest of us should get theirs. The LOS/LAA pilots are greedy. Everyone else suffers for them.

Something has GOT to change!

So sick of being hosed by a very small % of our pilots. The way things are set up, our union only represents people from two bases.

mainlineAF
01-08-2018, 03:32 PM
There's just another example. See, this is what I keep saying. I got a great call from Kimball Stone the other day just to touch base on an email I wrote. The union could care less.



I’d love to read that email.

jcountry
01-08-2018, 05:14 PM
I can’t believd LOS is even an issue.

We didn’t get industry standard. (We never get industry standard) That’s how we got set up for this crap.

I’d totally decertify today. Even if it meant being non-union. I’d much rather take my chances with the company-rather than being continuously hosed by APA

Name User
01-08-2018, 05:31 PM
I can’t believd LOS is even an issue.

We didn’t get industry standard. (We never get industry standard) That’s how we got set up for this crap.

I’d totally decertify today. Even if it meant being non-union. I’d much rather take my chances with the company-rather than being continuously hosed by APA

As they contract out the Airbus and 737 flying to Skywest.

The union may be toothless but at least we have some protection.

The APA made LOS a nonissue during the JCBA negotiations, I wish they would publically own it. That ship has sailed.

Route66
01-08-2018, 05:45 PM
As they contract out the Airbus and 737 flying to Skywest.

The union may be toothless but at least we have some protection.

The APA made LOS a nonissue during the JCBA negotiations, I wish they would publically own it. That ship has sailed.

Keep dreaming about that protection. They aren’t contracting out anything. Just keep throwing good money after bad.

Same ole same ole.

AAmi65yet
01-08-2018, 06:18 PM
Where were all the negotiators and BOD members who are a no on this AIP back during the JCBA???

THIS^:mad:

mainlineAF
01-08-2018, 06:29 PM
THIS^:mad:



Lol ok dude

jcountry
01-08-2018, 07:14 PM
Keep dreaming about that protection. They aren’t contracting out anything. Just keep throwing good money after bad.

Same ole same ole.

Maybe.

How do wie fix this ****?

Whatever it takes. I want to fix this Union.

Route66
01-09-2018, 04:09 AM
Maybe.

How do wie fix this ****?

Whatever it takes. I want to fix this Union.

First, I think the operative word is "WE". There are so many different factions here that I am skeptical the word "WE" would apply. Like you said, the best direction would be to just quit the union and get a large enough group to quit paying dues forcing those that want your money make them actually WORK for the privilege of convincing you that your money is well spent.

Pilots are so afraid of "the company" (not that they are perfect, by any means) they think that the union is a necessary evil. If the organization is "evil" as the saying goes, why contribute?

Once you break up the money, the association will change according to the needs of the group and not the wants of the few. The association is NOT in Section 6 yet, but they are negotiating Section 6 provisions that WILL GIVE TO THE FEW (LOS furloughs) YOUR MONEY while still stripping you of YOUR rights to keep YOUR MONEY.

These negotiations are led by Carey who simply want THEIR way and not YOUR way. Who is worst: the Company who IS that way or the Association who PRETENDS THE OPPOSITE?

The Company gives me a pay check, profit sharing, pay raises and generally good working conditions.

Tell me again what the LAA UNION gave us with THEIR GREEN BOOK in 2013????

Route66
01-09-2018, 04:16 AM
I’d love to read that email.

Now why would YOU care about what I have to say? You've discounted my voice and my opinion because I criticize the parochial interests of the APA. If the APA is NOT interested in my concerns and neither are you union supporters why would you care what I have to say to the Company.

AT LEAST THEY LISTEN!

When was the last time Carey gave YOU a call?????

mainlineAF
01-11-2018, 07:49 AM
Wow. I just listened to AW’s podcast on LOSNOW.org about the AIP. If you haven’t listened to it go listen to it now. Tons of great info.

I went from being leaning yes on the AIP to being absolutely for it. If the BOD votes no on this we just shot ourselves in the foot big time.

Bottom line: we are getting a ton and not giving up anything. DOTC/RAS and electronic notification is already in the contract.

Hope they do the smart thing and vote yes.

N10DJ
01-11-2018, 08:18 AM
Hope they do the smart thing and vote yes.

Excuse my ignorance but when is this vote taking place?

Sliceback
01-11-2018, 08:18 AM
As they contract out the Airbus and 737 flying to Skywest.

The union may be toothless but at least we have some protection.

The APA made LOS a nonissue during the JCBA negotiations, I wish they would publically own it. That ship has sailed.

Actually it wasn’t the majority inside APA. But it was the majority of the BOD. And they’re still in power.

Sliceback
01-11-2018, 08:20 AM
Excuse my ignorance but when is this vote taking place?

BOD only vote. 1/16 unless they delay the vote again.

Mover
01-11-2018, 08:24 AM
Wow. I just listened to AW’s podcast on LOSNOW.org about the AIP. If you haven’t listened to it go listen to it now. Tons of great info.

I went from being leaning yes on the AIP to being absolutely for it. If the BOD votes no on this we just shot ourselves in the foot big time.

Bottom line: we are getting a ton and not giving up anything. DOTC/RAS and electronic notification is already in the contract.

Hope they do the smart thing and vote yes.

Already in the contract but not yet implemented.

The RO language is really bad (and not in the contract).

Given the company's performance on the holiday premium (MOST have not even gotten the promised 150%), I do not trust the company to ever implement ACD.

ACD is great. I won't argue that, but I do not believe we'll ever see it.

I'm a firm NO unless they tie the implementation of DOTC/RAS to ACD or delete attachment 3 altogether.

mainlineAF
01-11-2018, 09:47 AM
Already in the contract but not yet implemented.



The RO language is really bad (and not in the contract).



Given the company's performance on the holiday premium (MOST have not even gotten the promised 150%), I do not trust the company to ever implement ACD.



ACD is great. I won't argue that, but I do not believe we'll ever see it.



I'm a firm NO unless they tie the implementation of DOTC/RAS to ACD or delete attachment 3 altogether.



I’m sure the holiday pay has to be done manually so that doesn’t surprise me that it hasn’t been received yet. The earliest that pay would be seen anyway is on the Jan 15 paycheck.

Interesting to think because of the holiday pay they will never institute ACD. I find that scenario to be extremely unlikely.

Al Czervik
01-11-2018, 09:54 AM
3509

Good explanation

mainlineAF
01-11-2018, 10:48 AM
3509



Good explanation



But DOTC/RAS!!!!!!!

This is a no-brainer.

AFTrainerGuy
01-11-2018, 12:31 PM
But DOTC/RAS!!!!!!!

This is a no-brainer.

I listened to podcast and agree with what he is saying.... I really want ACD too as junior line-holder. Really want it!

But, I gotta be honest, I really don’t think they are gonna implement ACD. No reason too and a million a month “penalty” is peanuts. I’m still a NO unless they can tie ACD to something like DOTC/RAS or something firm. If not, it’s “gives” with hopes of a “get” one day.

AFTrainerGuy
01-11-2018, 06:11 PM
Not that I actually get a vote

Frip
01-11-2018, 07:03 PM
"We don't want those Industry Leading Rigs anyway..."

Mover
01-12-2018, 04:10 AM
But DOTC/RAS!!!!!!!

This is a no-brainer.

Only if you're naive enough to believe the company will ever implement it.

Mover
01-12-2018, 04:14 AM
I’m sure the holiday pay has to be done manually so that doesn’t surprise me that it hasn’t been received yet. The earliest that pay would be seen anyway is on the Jan 15 paycheck.

Interesting to think because of the holiday pay they will never institute ACD. I find that scenario to be extremely unlikely.

Incorrect. Trips coded as PM/PR should've been paid at 150% with the remaining 50% in Feb. Any trips not coded PM/PR initially had to be manually input.

Guys (like me) were shafted the 150% despite identified trips being correctly coded. I spent two hours on the phone yesterday and got it straightened out.

The company has no incentive to implement ACD, and the fact that we get penalized for using our contractually provided vacation is BS.

This is a bad deal. You're seeing only the carrot and forgetting about the stick.

Attachment three codifies their blatant disregard of our contract. It also expands RO. Do we really want to go into Section 6 showing the company that we are this weak? Or showing the arbitrators that we're okay with these abuses of our contract?

No thanks.

sailingfun
01-12-2018, 05:37 AM
Only if you're naive enough to believe the company will ever implement it.

Are you saying that the agreement for average calendar day has no required implementation date and is simply at the discretion of the company? If so APA needs to fire the negotiators. Items that require increased Manning always require a implementation schedule however it should have firm dates.

Mover
01-12-2018, 05:56 AM
Are you saying that the agreement for average calendar day has no required implementation date and is simply at the discretion of the company? If so APA needs to fire the negotiators. Items that require increased Manning always require a implementation schedule however it should have firm dates.

It has an implementation date of 1 September IF 30% or more float their vacation (i.e. - get paid vs using vacation). After that, it's a $1 mil/month penalty and $1.5 mil/month every month thereafter.

$100/pilot per month. It's chump change and they can extend it indefinitely by merely paying the fine.

Meanwhile, the company gets our concession (Attachment 3 / DOTC/RAS) immediately.

aa73
01-12-2018, 01:18 PM
Well, we’re getting close. I’ve gone back and forth on whether or not this is a good deal. Here is the latest from the Scheduling Committee Chairman regarding false assumptions that the company won’t implement ACD:

Duty Rig Implementation Timeline

The pending agreement makes the company’s intent unambiguous. Arguments that it would be financially beneficial to the company to never implement these provisions are unsound. On the contrary, the structure of the penalty provision indicates to all – including to a neutral third party – that the company’s clear intent is to implement by 31-AUG. If they fail, there is a performance penalty. It further shows the seriousness of the timeline intent by increasing the penalty after just one month by 50%.

DOTC/RAS

In the past, I have been a vocal critic of the company’s DOTC/RAS efforts. Without debating or passing judgment on the value of pending grievances, it is worth noting that our input in the final DOTC/RAS product is now codified. The benefit of this system will be the removal of human subjective interpretation which leads to definitive accountability. This seems to be a pragmatic path away from the capricious practices of today and toward a contractually compliant system.

My take on this is that it needs to pass for 3 reasons:

1) if we vote it down, we just gave the company a free pass on their screwup (December), thus setting a bad future standard that AA pilots will always come to the rescue for a measly reward (only some pilots got 200%). IMO, we need to reap the maximum reward, otherwise we did all that for basically nothing.

2) Voting it in tells the company that we are on board and willing to do our part in improving the culture, as well as taking two very important QOL issues off the negotiating table when we open - ACD and LOS.

3) we unify our furloughees by getting them full LOS and don’t hang them out to dry, thus creating more unity within our ranks.

In a nutshell... my belief is that the pros outweigh the cons on this one. I think it needs to go through. I know I’ve gone back & forth but I’m sure I’m not the only one.

mainlineAF
01-12-2018, 01:25 PM
The above is spot on. I find the argument that the company has no intention of implementing ACD to be ridiculous.

Having ACD and LOS resolved before early openers will be huge. Otherwise that will take up a big slice of the pie.

Mover
01-12-2018, 02:06 PM
The above is spot on. I find the argument that the company has no intention of implementing ACD to be ridiculous.

Having ACD and LOS resolved before early openers will be huge. Otherwise that will take up a big slice of the pie.

I used to follow him on CnR, but for some reason Andy has gone off the deep end with this deal. Not sure what his agenda is.

The above is just flat out wrong. There are penalties to US if we don't float vacation. $1.5 mil is chump change to the company. It is unlikely we see this implemented before openers.

But more importantly, why are we giving any concessions right now?

The vote should be a no unless ACD is implemented sooner (concurrent with ATtachment 3 or attachment 3 is deleted).

The negotiating committee is against this deal. That should tell you a lot.

aa73
01-12-2018, 02:19 PM
Not entirely true. **SOME** of the negotiating committee is against it - not the entire committee.

Andy is just about the smartest guru on everything contractual - smarter than most on the negotiating committee. If he says it’s a good deal, it’s a good deal. He’s been right on many counts fo many years on other issues.

mainlineAF
01-12-2018, 02:38 PM
I used to follow him on CnR, but for some reason Andy has gone off the deep end with this deal. Not sure what his agenda is.



The above is just flat out wrong. There are penalties to US if we don't float vacation. $1.5 mil is chump change to the company. It is unlikely we see this implemented before openers.



But more importantly, why are we giving any concessions right now?



The vote should be a no unless ACD is implemented sooner (concurrent with ATtachment 3 or attachment 3 is deleted).



The negotiating committee is against this deal. That should tell you a lot.



If we don’t float they extend the implementation deadline because of staffing requirements. They can’t flip a switch and just turn on ACD. That’s logical.

Like aa73 said not all of the negotiating committee is against this. However, the negotiating committee was for the fatigue memo and the BOD voted that down. So now they listen to the NC?

There’s so much political BS at play here. USAPians who would vote down anything bc they hate everything about Parker and co, LAA infighting, etc. Thats what bothers me.

Mover
01-12-2018, 02:44 PM
Not entirely true. **SOME** of the negotiating committee is against it - not the entire committee.

Andy is just about the smartest guru on everything contractual - smarter than most on the negotiating committee. If he says it’s a good deal, it’s a good deal. He’s been right on many counts fo many years on other issues.

Several that I personally know are against it. Smart folks that were recently on CCC. Good enough for me.

I would've agreed about Andy prior to this, but I've been following him on Facebook, LOSNOW, and C&R. It seems like he's come unhinged about this deal. No idea why he's pushing so hard.

Attachment 3 is a concession. We don't need to be giving away anything. APA needs to enforce our contract.

I don't have any faith in the company to implement ACD. Why would they? Hell we can't even get basic items in our contract implemented, and Attachment 3 proves they're going to do whatever they want anyway.

No thanks.

Mover
01-12-2018, 02:47 PM
There’s so much political BS at play here. USAPians who would vote down anything bc they hate everything about Parker and co, LAA infighting, etc. Thats what bothers me.

That was all before my time. Having read Attachment 3 and seen how the company implements things that benefit us, I am firmly against this deal as written.

mainlineAF
01-12-2018, 02:52 PM
I don't have any faith in the company to implement ACD. Why would they? Hell we can't even get basic items in our contract implemented, and Attachment 3 proves they're going to do whatever they want anyway.



No thanks.



Why would they? Because it’s the same management team that gave us profit sharing (weak as it is), an 8% raise and A1 deadheads outside of section 6.

Look I’m no company man and I understand management isn’t necessarily our friend. But I’m with AW on this. The gets heavily outweigh everything else.

aa73
01-12-2018, 03:48 PM
He’s pushing hard because he knows it’s a win for us. He has no other agenda.

And contrary to the popular line of thinking... Approving this deal actually paves the way for quicker scheduling implementation, which is what we want.

*NOT* approving this deal keeps us in the Dark Ages and the company keeping up their daily violations...but on top of that, we lose out on ACD and LOS, yet two more items we would need to negotiate, while giving up who knows what.

And finally, not approving this deal tells the company, “hey, if we screw up, the pilots will fix it for us... for practically free.”

mainlineAF
01-13-2018, 11:20 AM
Any idea how the BOD is leaning?

I know CLT, PHL, 1 MIA and DCA are all no.

aa73
01-13-2018, 11:42 AM
It’s split evenly down the middle from what I’ve heard. But the union is being inundated with Vote No sound offs, so my gut feeling is that it will be voted down.

FlyingHercs
01-13-2018, 12:48 PM
So if this is voted “no”, what next? Does it go back for further negotiations or get dropped all together and all the pilot group gets is the extra pay already agreed to?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

mainlineAF
01-13-2018, 12:53 PM
It’s split evenly down the middle from what I’ve heard. But the union is being inundated with Vote No sound offs, so my gut feeling is that it will be voted down.



Mass hysteria from the uneducated.

Sandhawk
01-13-2018, 02:27 PM
Mass hysteria from the uneducated.

UNEDUCATED is the key word...

Most “NO” pilots I have talked to are basing their info on 2nd hand BS heard in the crew room.

Most have not watched or have no clue about the AW podcast or JW video...

Some of the reasons for wanting a NO vote are absurd and don’t even come close to what is really included in the AIP...

sumwherelse
01-13-2018, 03:17 PM
UNEDUCATED is the key word...

Most “NO” pilots I have talked to are basing their info on 2nd hand BS heard in the crew room.

Most have not watched or have no clue about the AW podcast or JW video...

Some of the reasons for wanting a NO vote are absurd and don’t even come close to what is really included in the AIP...

Just out of curiosity why do you Lend more credence to a podcast over a blast by another BOD member? The trick is to take all of the opinions and all of the information and make a decision based on that.

Personally, I think the whole thing was a botch job from the beginning, but the one thing that makes me a no is the weak implementation language. We can't even get our contract implemented, and we are to believe that a mere million bucks a month will persuade them to implement this? That's just silly and amounts to all gains for the company and nothing for us. Like I have said before we should be achieving not retreating!

jcountry
01-14-2018, 05:53 AM
I continue to be amazed by APA.....

How they somehow turned huge leverage into a 3 ring **** show we now have is incredible.

They should have just come away from the table and said “hey, folks. No deal. The company really ****ed up, but they don’t want to play ball. Enjoy your holidays off.”

Would be better than this mess we now have.

And seriously..... How did we even arrive at this point? How does one turn tremendous leverage into this nonsense?

Mover
01-14-2018, 09:43 AM
Mass hysteria from the uneducated.

All you have to do is read Attachment 3.

If it's not a concession, why don't we just drop it and get ACD/LOS?

Mover
01-14-2018, 09:45 AM
UNEDUCATED is the key word...

Most “NO” pilots I have talked to are basing their info on 2nd hand BS heard in the crew room.

Most have not watched or have no clue about the AW podcast or JW video...

Some of the reasons for wanting a NO vote are absurd and don’t even come close to what is really included in the AIP...

I've watched both. ACD is great IF it ever gets implemented. Not worth concessions in exchange for a soft implementation schedule.

AFTrainerGuy
01-14-2018, 10:17 AM
I've watched both. ACD is great IF it ever gets implemented. Not worth concessions in exchange for a soft implementation schedule.

This is my problem too. Simply put, I just don’t trust them to implement it. Tie it to DOTC/RAS and I’d be at APA HQ screaming for a yes vote.

Maybe I’m wrong and this wouldn’t be the first time, but the last few years of unimplemented items, “IT issues”, and other BS has soured my trust in AA management.

Either way it goes, I’m not going to lose sleep over it. I really don’t get a say anyway

Best thing I think they could do is keep kicking can on the vote and work out all the fine details. There just isn’t any rush that i see to vote either way. I’m guessing they picked 16th because vacation posts on 15th and they can see float results?

mainlineAF
01-14-2018, 10:23 AM
All you have to do is read Attachment 3.



If it's not a concession, why don't we just drop it and get ACD/LOS?



I have. I don’t have a problem with it for what we are getting.

Hueypilot
01-14-2018, 05:11 PM
I know I’ve gone back & forth but I’m sure I’m not the only one.

I've gone back and forth too. But I agree with you on this one for the reasons you put forth. Saying no costs the company nothing. I mean really...nothing. In fact, it tells them we fixed Christmas for free. They'll just say "see you in 2020."

Arado 234
01-14-2018, 11:07 PM
Why Will This Time Be Different?
How did APA get here? Why are President Carey and Chief Negotiator Bob Duma so willing to take another “leap of faith” by trusting the company to comply with another partially written and hastily-made agreement, rife with loopholes, soft implementation dates, and superficial analysis? Has the company ever proven trustworthy of complying with our past agreements?
Why, after the decades of sacrifice that our pilot group has made to keep AA afloat, and the record profits AA is making, do we still have to “give in order to receive”? We are no longer in bankruptcy; but apparently, we still have a bankruptcy mentality!
It has been more than three years since the JCBA was agreed upon and yet there are still major portions of the agreement that aren’t implemented, aren’t complied with or violated on a daily basis. A reasonable person must conclude the company has no plans to comply with our agreements at all.
President Carey remarked that he gave away the leverage we had during our “Green December” to “establish the credibility of APA’s negotiating team”. However, in light of our history it should be the company, and not APA, that needed to establish credibility. We could have demanded immediate reciprocation. We could already have LOS. We should have had a professional negotiating team do the bargaining.
The fact is that the company is not motivated to comply with our current agreements because they benefit from NOT complying, while APA hasn’t made it a priority to force compliance. The grievance process, which is meant to force compliance, has become impotent. This agreement further weakens the process by allowing the company to escape binding arbitration regarding those contractual violations. To make matters worse, APA has been effectively operating with only one overworked grievance lawyer, Tricia Kennedy, for much of the past year while the backlog continues to build. Where are President Carey’s priorities?
How hard can it be to automate our pay system or staff Pay Comp correctly so that the hundreds of errors and huge delays we experience are eliminated? “Direct Connect” is merely a band-aid on an already flawed process and doesn’t help to fix the source of the pay errors. Some of our pilots have yet to be paid their 200% for “Green December” flying performed more than a month ago. The multiple manual pay calculations that Pay Comp performs every month should embarrass a Fortune 500 company! The only reason one can conclude the process HASN’T been automated is that the company benefits from the errors, not the pilots. Can anyone really make sense of our paychecks? If you are underpaid would you know it?
How hard can it be for the company to implement simple contractual provisions like 15.J.2.c.(3)(e), that specifies a reserve pilot who signs in before the WOCL and flies more than 2 hours into the WOCL can’t be assigned a RAP for the next calendar day that starts prior to 0600 or a sequence that signs in prior to 0800? We “bought” this provision in the JCBA, have flagged the repeated violation of it, asked for immediate rectification, and received nothing for three years. Why not? The company can’t seem to figure out how to program it while APA has stood by idly and watched!
How hard can it be to give our reserve pilots a “prospective notice” of a 30-hour break BEFORE they take it, thus complying with the letter and spirit of both our contract and FAR 117? This is an area of continued contention between the union and the company and the basis for one of the Presidential grievances we will withdraw if we sign this agreement, thus allowing the company to continue the practice without the threat of punitive actions.
The company still hasn’t implemented many other contractual rights that improve our QOWL and which are contained in the JCBA, and yet President Carey is hell-bent on creating new agreements. For example, commuters living near different bases than their home-base still cannot consistently take advantage of out-of-base pickup IAW 15.L to fly trips near where they live (you guessed it……the company can’t seem to program it). When will the company come to the realization that assigning pilots who WANT to fly is better than forcing trips onto pilots who DON’T WANT TO FLY?
As the time draws near for the vote on our “global settlement (AIP) agreement” and the rhetoric from both sides increases, I would ask that we step back from the debate for a second and ask ourselves; “Is there any indication at all that the company will comply with a new set of rules when they have proven so reluctant to comply with the old set of rules?” I guess that President Carey has learned the company will be more likely to comply with the rules if the company is allowed to unilaterally write them!
Let’s start with the most onerous portion of the agreement; the acquiescence to Crew Scheduling’s made-up rules for scheduling us. Unlike President Carey I have never felt that the statement “They’re doing it to us already” is sufficient grounds to allow the company to KEEP doing it to us. Do you? If President Carey was directing the union to do the job it was chartered to do IAW its objectives, and acting like a bona-fida labor union, it would be fighting tooth and nail to fortify the grievance process and accelerate grievance hearings instead of allowing them to backlog and then trading them away for a fraction of the loss.
Some of those grievances being sold back to the company for 50 cents on the dollar (mine for instance) have been delayed precisely because the pilot filing the grievance has refused to take payment for crew scheduling’s violations on a “no cite, no precedent” basis at the initial hearing level. They have chosen to defer payment on thousands of dollars precisely BECAUSE they want an Arbitrator to hear the grievance and rule that AA not only violated the contract but CAN’T DO IT AGAIN! They want the decision made on a “cite and precedent” basis!
Now President Carey has offered to sell these grievances back to the company at a fraction of what they are worth on a “no cite and no precedent” basis, thus giving the company the "green light" to do it again! His justification is that the grievances might not have succeeded anyway. What kind of message is this signaling to the company? What motivation will the company have to comply with our contract in the future? What message does this send to our pilots who have flagged AA’s non-compliance with our contract, called APA for advice, and been told to “fly it and grieve it”? Will they ever follow APA’s advice again?
Also, what happens if we cannot come to a mutually agreeable solution regarding new Crew Scheduling rules in the timeframe contained in the AIP? Answer; we will continue to operate on Crew Schduling’s playbook until we capitulate, or a new agreement is put in place in the next Section VI. Is that the position we really want to be in? We had better get ready to live with these rules for a long time.
If we vote “yes” on the AIP, what happens to our ability to grieve Crew Scheduling violations contained in the 14 Presidential grievances, for example the company’s repeated failure to provide reserve pilots “prospective notice” of a 30-hour rest break? That grievance (and 13 others just like it) represents hundreds if not thousands of crew scheduling violations that will be withdrawn with prejudice. We won’t be able to grieve them again until some undetermined future date, if at all. Crew Scheduling will have received the ultimate “get out of jail Free” card and be given the “green light” to continue doing this with no further penalties.
Changing our Duty Rigs is an example of APA’s propensity to rush into an agreement without thoroughly examining the issue and thinking through the implications it will have on our Quality of Work Life (QOWL). These changes will have a profound effect on all of our schedules. It will affect every pilot on the seniority list. But let the buyer beware! There are always unintended consequences to every change we make. We need to take a step back and analyze these changes thoroughly BEFORE we agree on them. Only then will it be possible to mitigate any bad effects they may have on our QOWL before we have “buyers remorse”.
It is an over-simplification to state that the Duty Rigs will result in a quality of life improvement for ALL of our pilots. Many will probably spend less time AT work, but more will spend time getting TO work given the increase in long un-commutable trips. Many pilots who have situated themselves close to their home base to minimize their commuting time, and enjoy bidding shorter trips to increase the number of nights they spend at home, coach the kids sports team, or work on other interests, will have to increase the amount of time they spend away from home and on the road. Many of the shorter trips will be turned into 4 and 5-day trips if we don’t put restrictions on the solutions the Optimizer spits out.
It is deceptive to demonstrate how current sequences will pay under the new Duty Rigs, when we know the Optimizer will probably not create these types of sequences in the first place under the new Duty Rigs. Most of the 3-day slash trips will be absorbed into longer trips that work multiple legs on either end and possibly have embedded all-nighters.
Andy Weingram, the scheduling committee member who is featured on the DFW Vice Chairman’s “Straight Talk” video, doesn’t really know what will result from the new Duty Rigs because they were never sufficiently studied! APA has only analyzed ONE WEEK’S worth of scheduling under the new Duty Rigs. Many questions still remain unanswered. Was the test run performed on a high-time flying month like July’s schedule when the number of longer trips increase or on a low time-time month like February? What do the actual sequences look like? Why hasn’t that detailed information been provided to the BOD and the membership so that we can decide if we really want them? Why were the MIA domicile scheduling committee members specifically excluded from witnessing the tests? Why the secrecy over the results of the abbreviated test runs? APA only provided a statistical analysis summarizing the system-wide schedule. We won’t know what the Miami sequences actually look like until we buy them and have to fly them. Are we really willing to take that risk?
Why has the President restricted the committee members who witnessed the tests from discussing the results directly with individual BOD members? This is an intentional effort to control the flow of information, so the BOD and the membership is forced to debate from an informational disadvantage. Andy Weingram professes to know what pilots really want, but the results of the last scheduling survey were never released to the pilots so that WE know what we really want. Let us make that decision for ourselves. We don’t need Andy to tell us.
The new Duty Rigs can probably be negotiated into a “win” for both our QOWL and our paychecks IF they are implemented correctly. Hence, shouldn’t we take a step back and analyze these more thoroughly BEFORE we rush into an agreement? Perhaps it is prudent to put restrictions on the distribution of sequences like Delta’s limitation on the number of 5-day trips. There is no harm in thoroughly looking under the “hood” at this agreement BEFORE we “buy the car”. Remember, under the current agreement, depending on the vacation float, the rigs might not even be implemented until next year.
Another example of APA’s inability to negotiate a beneficial agreement can be found in paragraph D of the agreement. This paragraph penalizes the company for delaying implementation. However, it contains and obvious “poison pill”. Any additional mutually agreed upon changes releases the company from that penalty. For example, imposing restrictions such as Delta’s limit on the number of 5-day trips removes the penalty the company must pay and allows them to push off implementation indefinitely. The prudent course of action is to analyze the rigs more thoroughly and mitigate out the bad parts BEFORE we rush to an agreement. We have already learned the foolishness of allowing the company soft implementation schedules with the JCBA.
As if that wasn’t enough, there is the issue of our long-forgotten LTD pilots. At the beginning of December, the BOD was informed that this AIP would remove some of the onerous bankruptcy provisions we were forced to accept regarding our disabled pilots and contained in letter KK. Specifically, APA would negotiate to remove the “offset provision” which penalizes our disabled pilots by subtracting any social security benefits from their LTD benefits thus further reducing their income while out on disability. President Carey now reports that this item was “traded” for the $1.5 million dollar a month penalty the company will incur if they delay implementation of the Duty Rigs past January of 2019. Given the loophole in paying the penalty associated with implementing the Duty Rigs that already exists in paragraph D, this is probably wasted money and should have been spent improving the lives of our most disadvantaged pilots.
If APA had professionally negotiated this agreement, had thoughtfully considered all of the ramifications of the proposal BEFORE it putting it up for a vote, had avoided another contentious proposal that pits one pilot group against another, and had weighed the proposal against a reasonable expectation of the company’s actions based upon their past behavior, this AIP would have been dead-on-arrival before it ever reached the BOD floor. If our negotiators are unable to reach an acceptable solution, they should follow the advice broadcast out to the membership in the recent Dallas VC’s Blast (at a cost to every APA member); “Saying “No” is easy! Just say “No”! We cannot afford to take another “leap of faith” in the hopes that THIS TIME IT WILL BE DIFFERENT!
If you are as adamant as I am that APA not allow a further degradation to our scheduling rules, that you won’t tolerate a further reduction in our already abysmal QOWL, that APA has a duty to preserve and fortify the grievance procedure and not trade it away, and that we need to stop “giving to receive”, please help me by Sounding OFF now! Click here; https://www.alliedpilots.org/Services/SoundOff . Only after hearing from an informed membership will the BOD be able to gauge the true temperature of our pilots to give even more than we have given over the last decade.
I have attached a link to a recent Base Blast by the CLT Chairman Bob Frear. https://www.alliedpilots.org/News/ID/5776/ITS-OUR-TURN . I encourage all of you to take the time to read it. It echoes my sentiments and misgivings over this agreement. Please make your make your voices heard.

mainlineAF
01-15-2018, 02:06 AM
Everyone who wants this to pass needs to send sound offs. The no crowd apparently has been sending a ton of them.

Although it’s probably a waste of time if you’re Phl or clt.

Route66
01-15-2018, 02:34 AM
Everyone who wants this to pass needs to send sound offs. The no crowd apparently has been sending a ton of them.

Although it’s probably a waste of time if you’re Phl or clt.

And thats the way you think of us LUS....just shove a shiff in our backs, why don't you??? Typical LAA...you guys simply don't ever plan ahead and do your homework BEFORE the "culture change" mantra that has come from the company.

APA, caught with their pants down, AGAIN!!!

mainlineAF
01-15-2018, 02:44 AM
And thats the way you think of us LUS....just shove a shiff in our backs, why don't you??? Typical LAA...you guys simply don't ever plan ahead and do your homework BEFORE the "culture change" mantra that has come from the company.



APA, caught with their pants down, AGAIN!!!



I’m LUS genius.

EMBFlyer
01-15-2018, 03:17 AM
And thats the way you think of us LUS....just shove a shiff in our backs, why don't you??? Typical LAA...you guys simply don't ever plan ahead and do your homework BEFORE the "culture change" mantra that has come from the company.

APA, caught with their pants down, AGAIN!!!

I think it's more of the mindset that Bob is way smarter than anyone, especially a new hire. And if you don't believe that, just ask him.

And by new hire, I mean anyone hired after 1989.

Mover
01-15-2018, 04:56 AM
I have. I don’t have a problem with it for what we are getting.

Hopefully you are in the minority.

I can't understand why anyone would want to give concessions in a time of record profit in exchange for a loosely implemented PROMISE with no teeth.

sumwherelse
01-15-2018, 05:16 AM
Everyone who wants this to pass needs to send sound offs. The no crowd apparently has been sending a ton of them.

Although it’s probably a waste of time if you’re Phl or clt.


Why in God’s name would you want this to pass????

jcountry
01-15-2018, 05:23 AM
Everyone who wants this to pass needs to send sound offs. The no crowd apparently has been sending a ton of them.

Although it’s probably a waste of time if you’re Phl or clt.

There probably aren’t very many.

This is a crap agreement. We have no business giving any concessions in this environment.

mainlineAF
01-15-2018, 05:59 AM
lolz the internets fear mongering has taken off.

jcountry
01-15-2018, 06:16 AM
lolz the internets fear mongering has taken off.

I'm not sure that the lack of implementation schedule is fear mongering.

The company will not implement min day, when the penalty is so much cheaper.

sumwherelse
01-15-2018, 06:17 AM
lolz the internets fear mongering has taken off.


Why is stating facts fear mongering? This agreement is flawed. This agreement has give backs in a time where we should be giving nothing back. Defend yourself sir. Why is this such a great deal? When did an interest in making sure we get the best deal or at least a good deal become fear mongering? I would rather have no deal than a bad deal and this is a bad deal!

Route66
01-15-2018, 06:24 AM
I’m LUS genius.

Self emulation. We have those in CLT/PHL as well.

Route66
01-15-2018, 06:29 AM
I think it's more of the mindset that Bob is way smarter than anyone, especially a new hire. And if you don't believe that, just ask him.

And by new hire, I mean anyone hired after 1989.

I don't agree with BF most of the time for any number of reasons. My mindset has always be simple: BE PREPARED. The union mindset has NEVER looked ahead and planned for WHAT IF'S????

They are always blind sided by the Company and last minute offers without having ALREADY WEIGHED POSSIBLE OPTIONS! What can we work with the Company in the future and what do we have now? Wheres the improvement and wheres the trade off?

This is something that fails union mentality. Plus we're so fractionalized its hard to point where to start.

AFTrainerGuy
01-15-2018, 06:41 AM
I'm not sure that the lack of implementation schedule is fear mongering.

The company will not implement min day, when the penalty is so much cheaper.

My point too... some can point at what company has done (8%, PS, etc...) and argue they are striving for “culture change” and such. I can point out contract breaches, in-implemented items, “IT issues” etc showing exact opposite.

It comes down to trust and I just don’t have it.

To each his own, but after much waffling back and forth, personally I’d like to see this get tossed back.

I know most of arguments against the deal are FUD but not one yes voter can show me how they are assured it will be implemented. And that’s my real problem with this. If it was 100% gonna be implemented, I think they would tie it to DOTC/RAS or have a real penalty. Without it, you just have to trust them.

Just my opinion

Mover
01-15-2018, 06:42 AM
lolz the internets fear mongering has taken off.

Aren't you <30? You of all people should want to stop giving concessions to the company with such a long career ahead of you.

At some point we have to break the cycle of weakness and actually be a union.

No one's on the courthouse steps. There's no reason to give the company anything.

Mover
01-15-2018, 06:45 AM
My point too... some can point at what company has done (8%, PS, etc...) and argue they are striving for “culture change” and such. I can point out contract breaches, in-implemented items, “IT issues” etc showing exact opposite.

It comes down to trust and I just don’t have it.

To each his own, but after much waffling back and forth, personally I’d like to see this get tossed back.

I know most of arguments against the deal are FUD but not one yes voter can show me how they are assured it will be implemented. And that’s my real problem with this. If it was 100% gonna be implemented, I think they would tie it to DOTC/RAS or have a real penalty. Without it, you just have to trust them.

Just my opinion

Attachment 3 is evidence of this. How can you trust a company that just admitted they're going to do whatever they want anyway?

We need to take get rid of the "fly it and grieve it" and just stop flying contract violations.

mainlineAF
01-15-2018, 07:09 AM
Aren't you <30? You of all people should want to stop giving concessions to the company with such a long career ahead of you.



At some point we have to break the cycle of weakness and actually be a union.



No one's on the courthouse steps. There's no reason to give the company anything.



Not sure what my age has to do with it. But yea I’ve got a long time left here.

I’d rather negotiate to fix these scheduling issues when section 6 comes than try and negotiate LOS/ACD.

ORDinary
01-15-2018, 07:17 AM
lolz the internets fear mongering has taken off.

Just wondering, could you or some others who want a yes vote present more specific arguments for why you think the no voters are wrong? I admit I'm an outsider looking in (will flow to AA soon) but this will affect me eventually. The post with the MIA email includes what look to me like some great reasons to oppose this. It would be helpful to hear actual, specific counterpoints.

sumwherelse
01-15-2018, 07:18 AM
Not sure what my age has to do with it. But yea I’ve got a long time left here.

I’d rather negotiate to fix these scheduling issues when section 6 comes than try and negotiate LOS/ACD.

Haha. Good luck!!! Once you give away scheduling “issues” you ain’t getting them back!!

Arado 234
01-15-2018, 07:53 AM
I’m LUS genius.

Yes, but are you stable?