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 : Latest AA contract proposal


Cameltoad
12-23-2014, 08:40 PM
For once don't be greedy to the point of stupidity,,,,,take the damn money.


inline five
12-23-2014, 08:49 PM
It's not a raise if you have to sell your work rules to get it.

Except for pay rates the place I came from (a 50 seat RJ operator) had a contract vastly superior to the APA proposed one.

CanoePilot
12-23-2014, 08:52 PM
It's not a raise if you have to sell your work rules to get it.

what work rules?


inline five
12-23-2014, 08:55 PM
what work rules?

LOL exactly

Will we ever have any? Ever? I'm not convinced we will.

PurpleTurtle
12-23-2014, 08:58 PM
It's not a raise if you have to sell your work rules to get it.

It's a bullet point proposal that fits on one page... there will be 1,000 grienvaces by the time it is amendable.. And profits may be approaching $10B a year by then... (We are supposed to make over $7B next year though synergies haven't even started).. And we will still be spending 34 hour overnights in the Days Inn, without a rig or calendar day, making $2.10 per hour, and nothing more.

CanoePilot
12-23-2014, 08:59 PM
LOL exactly

Will we ever have any? Ever? I'm not convinced we will.

so we aren't giving up any, whats the problem? we aren't getting a min day in arbitration.

Thedude
12-23-2014, 10:43 PM
For once don't be greedy to the point of stupidity,,,,,take the damn money.

Are you a company shill or what.

Route66
12-24-2014, 04:30 AM
Are you a company shill or what.

Whoaaaa........I remember when I was on the receiving end of this discussion.

Another trip down memory lane!!

Pilot history repeats itself.

Route66
12-24-2014, 04:32 AM
Hey why don't you guys go over to the American Airline Pilots page on Facebook and take the poll they have??? Eye opener for MEC (oops: BOD).

PRS Guitars
12-24-2014, 06:07 AM
And we will still be spending 34 hour overnights in the Days Inn, without a rig or calendar day, making $2.10 per hour, and nothing more.

I wasn't aware that we would lose our trip rig under this deal.

Cameltoad
12-24-2014, 06:17 AM
"Are you a company shill or what"

Neither, clearly you have already forgotten what happened a few weeks ago with the flight attendants not to mention the constraints of the MOU which now allows AA to proffer arbitration. AA does not have to negotiate anymore and arbitration will get us "industry standard" And rest assured they (the arbitrators) will not rush in to fill this contract with a bunch of work rules to make us all happy, and the old USAir ploy of "well, I don't like this so I'm just going to take my ball and go home" won't fly this time if it ever did before.

DCA A321 FO
12-24-2014, 06:19 AM
For once don't be greedy to the point of stupidity,,,,,take the damn money.


Please, you take the money and shove it up your arse.

Cameltoad
12-24-2014, 06:34 AM
Fine, make your self righteous stand, hope it makes for a good meal, again read the MOU

Saabs
12-24-2014, 06:40 AM
"Are you a company shill or what"

Neither, clearly you have already forgotten what happened a few weeks ago with the flight attendants not to mention the constraints of the MOU which now allows AA to proffer arbitration. AA does not have to negotiate anymore and arbitration will get us "industry standard" And rest assured they (the arbitrators) will not rush in to fill this contract with a bunch of work rules to make us all happy, and the old USAir ploy of "well, I don't like this so I'm just going to take my ball and go home" won't fly this time if it ever did before.

Are you saying you are opposed to keeping the green book intact thus nullifying arbitration?

Saabs
12-24-2014, 06:41 AM
I wasn't aware that we would lose our trip rig under this deal.

This pilot group has already taken concessions on their trip rigs years ago. Even more proof you don't get back what you give up.

More reason to keep the green book!!!

The Drizzle
12-24-2014, 07:31 AM
Are you saying you are opposed to keeping the green book intact thus nullifying arbitration?

Are you saying that if our response to a company proposal in arbitration that is well laid out, costed by a team of highly paid corporate professionals, and offers improvements in return at the same value is to cross our arms and say, "nah, we good" is the best course of action?

That's magical thinking and we will be eaten alive by a team of arbitrators that has little sympathy or patience for such shenanigans.

Saabs
12-24-2014, 07:46 AM
Are you saying that if our response to a company proposal in arbitration that is well laid out, costed by a team of highly paid corporate professionals, and offers improvements in return at the same value is to cross our arms and say, "nah, we good" is the best course of action?

That's magical thinking and we will be eaten alive by a team of arbitrators that has little sympathy or patience for such shenanigans.

I don't think it makes it to arbitration.

I think APA should retain the green book instead of arbitration. The company will compromise.

We cannot lose anything we have if we opt to stay with the green book.

Wiskey Driver
12-24-2014, 07:51 AM
Are you saying that if our response to a company proposal in arbitration that is well laid out, costed by a team of highly paid corporate professionals, and offers improvements in return at the same value is to cross our arms and say, "nah, we good" is the best course of action?

That's magical thinking and we will be eaten alive by a team of arbitrators that has little sympathy or patience for such shenanigans.

No what I believe he is saying is that he is just fine with staying on current greenbook with all its current work rule. I think he is also saying the he is just fine with the 3% raise in Jan because he still has the better work rules in tact. He is also saying that he is fine with the 16% raise that will come in 16 and still have his current work rules in tact. Then I believe finally that he is saying that he will ride it out until the opening of section 6 then back management into a corner or watch this place burn down.

Its one thing for a company to come to you in lean times and ask for some employee help in the way of concessions. I think that when a company is making billions in profits then turn around and want to gut your contract in terms of work rules for a couple of bucks is just flat out rude and disrespectful.

I may or may not have this right Saabs you tell us please.

WD at AWA

DCA A321 FO
12-24-2014, 07:59 AM
I think that when a company is making billions in profits then turn around and want to gut your contract in terms of work rules for a couple of bucks is just flat out rude and disrespectful.

I may or may not have this right Saabs you tell us please.

WD at AWA

Yo, Brother from another Mother, you got this right.

KiloAlpha
12-24-2014, 08:13 AM
Send it out for a vote.

PurpleTurtle
12-24-2014, 08:28 AM
No what I believe he is saying is that he is just fine with staying on current greenbook with all its current work rule. I think he is also saying the he is just fine with the 3% raise in Jan because he still has the better work rules in tact. He is also saying that he is fine with the 16% raise that will come in 16 and still have his current work rules in tact. Then I believe finally that he is saying that he will ride it out until the opening of section 6 then back management into a corner or watch this place burn down.

Its one thing for a company to come to you in lean times and ask for some employee help in the way of concessions. I think that when a company is making billions in profits then turn around and want to gut your contract in terms of work rules for a couple of bucks is just flat out rude and disrespectful.

I may or may not have this right Saabs you tell us please.

WD at AWA

Damn, I agree with WD again.. W_T_F is going on? :D

PurpleTurtle
12-24-2014, 08:29 AM
Send it out for a vote.

Follow the constitution. :cool:

Wiskey Driver
12-24-2014, 08:31 AM
Send it out for a vote.

Ok here is my problem with that logic. The majority of the pilots well never see past that shiny new pay rate. In a few short months when the full impact of the gutted work rules show up it will only then be apparent that it was not worth the couple of dollars. I can make $200 plus an hour flying 80hrs a month and be happy. I can not be happy working 4 on 1 off 4 on 1 of 4 on 1 off.

This screams FATIGUE to me and its now my understanding that the company has taken away its fatigue policy of paying people when calling in fatigued. This place is going down hill fast.

WD at AWA

PurpleTurtle
12-24-2014, 08:37 AM
Ok here is my problem with that logic. The majority of the pilots well never see past that shiny new pay rate. In a few short months when the full impact of the gutted work rules show up it will only then be apparent that it was not worth the couple of dollars. I can make $200 plus an hour flying 80hrs a month and be happy. I can not be happy working 4 on 1 off 4 on 1 of 4 on 1 off.

This screams FATIGUE to me and its now my understanding that the company has taken away its fatigue policy of paying people when calling in fatigued. This place is going down hill fast.

WD at AWA


Again, I tell ya. WD you are a genius!

Saabs
12-24-2014, 09:05 AM
No what I believe he is saying is that he is just fine with staying on current greenbook with all its current work rule. I think he is also saying the he is just fine with the 3% raise in Jan because he still has the better work rules in tact. He is also saying that he is fine with the 16% raise that will come in 16 and still have his current work rules in tact. Then I believe finally that he is saying that he will ride it out until the opening of section 6 then back management into a corner or watch this place burn down.

Its one thing for a company to come to you in lean times and ask for some employee help in the way of concessions. I think that when a company is making billions in profits then turn around and want to gut your contract in terms of work rules for a couple of bucks is just flat out rude and disrespectful.

I may or may not have this right Saabs you tell us please.

WD at AWA

Good post WD.

I think people don't realize that we have the option to retain all current work rules in arbitration by keeping the green book.

I'm in my mid thirties so I have a few years left here. You rarely get things back once you give them up, so let's make it worth while.

International/domestic split given up for calendar day? Yeah that might be worth thinking about.

I'm on a 4 day right now. It's worth 17 hours, at other carriers it would be worth at minimum just under 21 hours.

This airline has too many red eyes to not have calendar day pay. And to yes voters, yes I know we won't get calendar pay in arbitration.

I believe both sides want a deal. Jan 3 deadline for the retro pay? I can live without it. That's a scare tactic. They want things from us. Does anyone really think they want a domestic and international little bus division? There is some leverage, am so think the deal will sweeten.

The overnight sim thing ? I don't do international wide body so I don't know much about it, but I'll listen to APA on it. Someone keeps brining up how it is a big deal with the 787 coming online. So let's not just give it up without proper research or compensation.

Attacks get personal on here and they shouldn't. I just want people to take a step back and realize this contract will echoe for the rest or their careers and those behind them. Let's not be blinded by pay rates a year early. We have some leverage and don't even know what the APA has in store yet. Their press release yesterday didn't show their cards at all.

Everyone here knows we aren't going to get deltas current compensation let alone their new contracts. To the yes voters compensation is different than pay rates.

It's not over yet, not even by a mile. But in the end, I am ok with the green book and prepared for it.

PurpleTurtle
12-24-2014, 09:24 AM
The BOD is meeting on Jan 2&3... I say they should meet on the beach in Hawaii, and send a prepackaged form response via email (like Kirby).

Wiskey Driver
12-24-2014, 09:25 AM
Good post WD.

I think people don't realize that we have the option to retain all current work rules in arbitration by keeping the green book.

I'm in my mid thirties so I have a few years left here. You rarely get things back once you give them up, so let's make it worth while.

International/domestic split given up for calendar day? Yeah that might be worth thinking about.

I'm on a 4 day right now. It's worth 17 hours, at other carriers it would be worth at minimum just under 21 hours.

This airline has too many red eyes to not have calendar day pay. And to yes voters, yes I know we won't get calendar pay in arbitration.

I believe both sides want a deal. Jan 3 deadline for the retro pay? I can live without it. That's a scare tactic. They want things from us. Does anyone really think they want a domestic and international little bus division? There is some leverage, am so think the deal will sweeten.

The overnight sim thing ? I don't do international wide body so I don't know much about it, but I'll listen to APA on it. Someone keeps brining up how it is a big deal with the 787 coming online. So let's not just give it up without proper research or compensation.

Attacks get personal on here and they shouldn't. I just want people to take a step back and realize this contract will echoe for the rest or their careers and those behind them. Let's not be blinded by pay rates a year early. We have some leverage and don't even know what the APA has in store yet. Their press release yesterday didn't show their cards at all.

Everyone here knows we aren't going to get deltas current compensation let alone their new contracts. To the yes voters compensation is different than pay rates.

It's not over yet, not even by a mile. But in the end, I am ok with the green book and prepared for it.

Saabs, you have years in which to try and recoup what this career used to be. Corporate fat cats with their Harvard and Whaton business degrees have figured that if you steal from Peter you can pay Paul but Paul got tricked and didn't didn't get the money so the corp fat cats kept it but promised to give it back next time. Next time never comes!

I think that all you young guys and girls need to start taking this career back and realizing that there really is a shortage of skilled pilot labor. There is your leverage right there! No bucks no Buck Rogers. Know who you are and just what you have to offer, TAKE IT ALL BACK. Keep in mind that you only have one thing to sell and if you give that away you have NOTHING.

WD at AWA

aa73
12-24-2014, 09:42 AM
Guys and gals,

We all need to settle down and wait to see this thing in contract language, the final product. At that point make an informed decision.

My personal opinion, this thing will pass by a large percentage if sent out to a vote.

Merry Christmas to all,
73

inline five
12-24-2014, 09:50 AM
Guys and gals,

We all need to settle down and wait to see this thing in contract language, the final product. At that point make an informed decision.

My personal opinion, this thing will pass by a large percentage if sent out to a vote.

Merry Christmas to all,
73
The problem with sending it out to a vote is the average line pilot is fairly uninformed on what can or will happen either way.

The BOD is educated (or should be) and fully understands the ramifications of a yes/no nod.

Personally, I would much rather a very well educated limited group made up of our group demographic make this decision than 13,000 uneducated people (ie FAs voting "No" just to show they were unhappy, even though they wanted it).

From what the APA has already shown, they don't intend to sell anyone out.

However I have a hunch that come the next contract cycle, these same things will be on the table as company "must haves". Just something to think about. Personally, I'm happy if the BOD is happy and they feel they have extracted every penny of value that they can.

But what I DON'T want to happen, is taking our marbles and storming out, throwing a tantrum like a 3 year old.

Doctor
12-24-2014, 09:54 AM
No what I believe he is saying is that he is just fine with staying on current greenbook with all its current work rule. I think he is also saying the he is just fine with the 3% raise in Jan because he still has the better work rules in tact. He is also saying that he is fine with the 16% raise that will come in 16 and still have his current work rules in tact. Then I believe finally that he is saying that he will ride it out until the opening of section 6 then back management into a corner or watch this place burn down.

Its one thing for a company to come to you in lean times and ask for some employee help in the way of concessions. I think that when a company is making billions in profits then turn around and want to gut your contract in terms of work rules for a couple of bucks is just flat out rude and disrespectful.

I may or may not have this right Saabs you tell us please.

WD at AWA

Well said!

inline five
12-24-2014, 10:10 AM
There are some objections on certain language for various company proposals.

One is the midnight sim session. It's my understanding that the reason being, is it basically becomes a CQT event (or PC) to do three landings. AA apparently is still using the old PC standard, pass/fail. I agree with the union's stance, coming from their POV.

First I think it's important that the sim session be made the most of, because, if someone hasn't flown enough to land 3 times in 90 days, they aren't very proficient. I think it's in the pilots and companies' best interest that that session is done as a training event, for safety's sake.

However, it's pretty obvious that doing it at 3am in the morning, the student isn't going to get hardly anything out of it. I understand why the company wants it, but I think they want it for the wrong reasons.

If the company wants to have mid night sim sessions, why not make the midnight sim session simply a 3 t/o and 3 landings event, not a pass/fail event. If they want to use it as a training event, stick to normal training schedules.

I would think that would alleviate most everyone's concerns with that.

Just one example, I would think/hope we could come to an eye-to-eye if we sharpened our pencils.

Hotel Pen
12-24-2014, 11:12 AM
Saabs, Purple, Whisky et al:

I agree we should negotiate as much as we can and that the Jan. 3 deadline is a scare tactic, but isn't there a false sense of gain in the whole 'I'm fine with the greenbook' argument?

I agree that now is not the time for concessions, but we can't act as if arbitration is a victory. It equates to a loss of a good deal of money for every pilot on the list and what the greenbook maintains simply isn't that good. If we had the vaunted 'Delta work rules' in the greenbook that would be one thing, but it seems to me we have a choice here of 'crummy work rules with a small raise' or 'crummy work rules with a bigger raise.' Whether or not this was the company outmaneuvering us in negotiations can be argued, but it is the current reality. The losses from the Company's offer (HBT, combined intl/dom and midnight sims) don't seem to outweigh the financial gain for every pilot.

Merry Christmas everyone!

justjack
12-24-2014, 12:00 PM
I want a clear cut explanation/side by side comparison of what the company is offering vs. what the MOU offers in arbitration.
Then I want a vote.

Saabs
12-24-2014, 12:41 PM
Saabs, Purple, Whisky et al:

I agree we should negotiate as much as we can and that the Jan. 3 deadline is a scare tactic, but isn't there a false sense of gain in the whole 'I'm fine with the greenbook' argument?

I agree that now is not the time for concessions, but we can't act as if arbitration is a victory. It equates to a loss of a good deal of money for every pilot on the list and what the greenbook maintains simply isn't that good. If we had the vaunted 'Delta work rules' in the greenbook that would be one thing, but it seems to me we have a choice here of 'crummy work rules with a small raise' or 'crummy work rules with a bigger raise.' Whether or not this was the company outmaneuvering us in negotiations can be argued, but it is the current reality. The losses from the Company's offer (HBT, combined intl/dom and midnight sims) don't seem to outweigh the financial gain for every pilot.

Merry Christmas everyone!
That was a well thought out post.


Sorry to be so grumpy, but my 33 hour layover meaning I'm not getting paid today makes me extra grumpy!!!

CanoePilot
12-24-2014, 01:33 PM
That was a well thought out post.


Sorry to be so grumpy, but my 33 hour layover meaning I'm not getting paid today makes me extra grumpy!!!

That's not gonna change with or without arbitration.

texaspilot76
12-24-2014, 01:56 PM
The problem with sending it out to a vote is the average line pilot is fairly uninformed on what can or will happen either way.

The BOD is educated (or should be) and fully understands the ramifications of a yes/no nod.

Personally, I would much rather a very well educated limited group made up of our group demographic make this decision than 13,000 uneducated people (ie FAs voting "No" just to show they were unhappy, even though they wanted it).

From what the APA has already shown, they don't intend to sell anyone out.

However I have a hunch that come the next contract cycle, these same things will be on the table as company "must haves". Just something to think about. Personally, I'm happy if the BOD is happy and they feel they have extracted every penny of value that they can.

But what I DON'T want to happen, is taking our marbles and storming out, throwing a tantrum like a 3 year old.

Yeah, just like our educated Congress is making all the proper decisions for its citizens.

Put it out to vote, and do it before January 3!

EMB4Ever
12-24-2014, 02:18 PM
You're hoping a group that gave away profit sharing for a paltry joke of a credit is going to make the right call here? Yeah. Sure.

PurpleTurtle
12-24-2014, 02:24 PM
Saabs, Purple, Whisky et al:

I agree we should negotiate as much as we can and that the Jan. 3 deadline is a scare tactic, but isn't there a false sense of gain in the whole 'I'm fine with the greenbook' argument?

I agree that now is not the time for concessions, but we can't act as if arbitration is a victory. It equates to a loss of a good deal of money for every pilot on the list and what the greenbook maintains simply isn't that good. If we had the vaunted 'Delta work rules' in the greenbook that would be one thing, but it seems to me we have a choice here of 'crummy work rules with a small raise' or 'crummy work rules with a bigger raise.' Whether or not this was the company outmaneuvering us in negotiations can be argued, but it is the current reality. The losses from the Company's offer (HBT, combined intl/dom and midnight sims) don't seem to outweigh the financial gain for every pilot.

Merry Christmas everyone!

Nobody ever negotiated successfully without an honest perspective of what the advesary needed and could afford (without clouded judgement of one's own fears).. He has told us what he needs and can't get in arbitration and it's obvious what he can afford.

We have caught him in numerous lies and half truths. There is nothing special at all about Jan 3rd... He will always need to buy the industry standard concessions that he is offering to buy.. That is until we sell them. Arbitration is meaningless in the sale of those concessions, except to the extent it is used as a scare tactic and delay to the actual settlement he needs to be on even footing with Delta.

Sooner or later we will come to an agreement, inspite of Doug's dogs of war.

eaglefly
12-24-2014, 02:38 PM
Yeah, just like our educated Congress is making all the proper decisions for its citizens.

Put it out to vote, and do it before January 3!

Zero chance of that. I know you desperately want the $$$ and couldn't care less about anything else, but calmer heads are evaluating all the aspects of the present situation to make whatever decision they deem best. It's good $$$ hungry "gimme-nows" aren't in control.

Saabs
12-24-2014, 02:45 PM
Good post WD.

I think people don't realize that we have the option to retain all current work rules in arbitration by keeping the green book.

I'm in my mid thirties so I have a few years left here. You rarely get things back once you give them up, so let's make it worth while.

International/domestic split given up for calendar day? Yeah that might be worth thinking about.

I'm on a 4 day right now. It's worth 17 hours, at other carriers it would be worth at minimum just under 21 hours.

This airline has too many red eyes to not have calendar day pay. And to yes voters, yes I know we won't get calendar pay in arbitration.

I believe both sides want a deal. Jan 3 deadline for the retro pay? I can live without it. That's a scare tactic. They want things from us. Does anyone really think they want a domestic and international little bus division? There is some leverage, am so think the deal will sweeten.

The overnight sim thing ? I don't do international wide body so I don't know much about it, but I'll listen to APA on it. Someone keeps brining up how it is a big deal with the 787 coming online. So let's not just give it up without proper research or compensation.

Attacks get personal on here and they shouldn't. I just want people to take a step back and realize this contract will echoe for the rest or their careers and those behind them. Let's not be blinded by pay rates a year early. We have some leverage and don't even know what the APA has in store yet. Their press release yesterday didn't show their cards at all.

Everyone here knows we aren't going to get deltas current compensation let alone their new contracts. To the yes voters compensation is different than pay rates.

It's not over yet, not even by a mile. But in the end, I am ok with the green book and prepared for it.

That's not gonna change with or without arbitration.

Thanks I had no idea!

Wiskey Driver
12-24-2014, 03:31 PM
Saabs, Purple, Whisky et al:

I agree we should negotiate as much as we can and that the Jan. 3 deadline is a scare tactic, but isn't there a false sense of gain in the whole 'I'm fine with the greenbook' argument?

I agree that now is not the time for concessions, but we can't act as if arbitration is a victory. It equates to a loss of a good deal of money for every pilot on the list and what the greenbook maintains simply isn't that good. If we had the vaunted 'Delta work rules' in the greenbook that would be one thing, but it seems to me we have a choice here of 'crummy work rules with a small raise' or 'crummy work rules with a bigger raise.' Whether or not this was the company outmaneuvering us in negotiations can be argued, but it is the current reality. The losses from the Company's offer (HBT, combined intl/dom and midnight sims) don't seem to outweigh the financial gain for every pilot.

Merry Christmas everyone!

HP,

Arbitration is not a victory for the pilots but its certainly not a victory for management either. Look at it this way, all of the items that Doug wants to gut he can not in arbitration so its status quo in that regard.

I will say this, what AWA lacked in hourly rate we made up for with some of the better work rules in the industry. 5:15 min day credit, company paid STD which was 66% of whatever your hr rate was. LTD benefits and a number of others. This is all gone now and while I like the new hourly rates, look at how much we have had to pay for them. I will not dare ask an LAA pilot what they have given up and what the company wants us to give up now.

So while Arbitration is no savior for us its certainly not one for them either.

Merry Christmas

WD at AWA

Hueypilot
12-24-2014, 06:55 PM
I wasn't aware that we would lose our trip rig under this deal.

To answer your question, no, we don't lose our trip rigs. If anything we get a very small bump, but probably nothing you'd really notice.

It's interesting that everyone is saying "save the work rules". We don't really have any work rules to "save", and AAG isn't suggesting changing any of the existing work rules for the most part.

The vast majority of their asks are organizational, not really "work rules" related. It's already been dissected in other forums, but both the I/D combination and the HBT changes would result in about 100-300 positions lost out of 14,000+, but it could also have a net benefit too in terms of possible expansion of WB flying.

You need to understand how the whole MTA/JCBA thing works. There are some, from reading their posts, that seem to think the company's couple-page offer is their entire "contract", but that's not the case.

The current Green Book IS the contract, and their asks are simply amendments to that Green Book. If we accept this deal, we get the pay raise, and they get the modifications to the Green Book that they are seeking. Everything else already in the Green Book stays AS IS.

Essentially, this is the contract we are looking at right now:

Current MTA Green Book, except changes as follows:

- Replace current MTA pay language with Delta +7% begining 2 December 2014, with pay raises as listed by the company (i.e., 3% per year throughout the contract).
- International flying using FAR 117 HBT language
- International/Domestic divisions at LAA combined to be in line with LUS-E and LUS-W single-division structure
- Midnight sims for landing currency IF no other sim periods are available
- Replace "Reasonably available" with "promptly" for short-call
- Quarterly system bids instead of monthly (LAA...LUS is as-needed)
- Discussion of Cadillac healthcare tax and how to compensate pilots while keeping the plan value below the threshold (cost-neutral)
- One year contract extension (includes another 3% pay raise, however)

Additions to the Green Book:

- 2 years of LOS for furloughs
- Change of min duty period from 5:00 to 5:10 (minimal)
- Dropped mention of the 2 hour hard call out language
- Several other minor TAs such as passport fees paid, moving expenses, uniform expenses, etc.

All the other sections of the Green Book (and thus the current MTA) remain unmodified. So all this talk about "don't vote for it, you don't know what's in it" is not really true. Granted, we'll still need to see the final language to ensure nothing was snuck in (or out), but per the current proposal, no one is talking about eliminating trip rigs or any other current work rules other than the proposals listed above.

Jetdriver7
12-24-2014, 06:59 PM
no what i believe he is saying is that he is just fine with staying on current greenbook with all its current work rule. I think he is also saying the he is just fine with the 3% raise in jan because he still has the better work rules in tact. He is also saying that he is fine with the 16% raise that will come in 16 and still have his current work rules in tact. Then i believe finally that he is saying that he will ride it out until the opening of section 6 then back management into a corner or watch this place burn down.

Its one thing for a company to come to you in lean times and ask for some employee help in the way of concessions. I think that when a company is making billions in profits then turn around and want to gut your contract in terms of work rules for a couple of bucks is just flat out rude and disrespectful.

I may or may not have this right saabs you tell us please.

Wd at awa


spot on!!!!!!!:)

Jetdriver7
12-24-2014, 07:12 PM
To answer your question, no, we don't lose our trip rigs. If anything we get a very small bump, but probably nothing you'd really notice.

It's interesting that everyone is saying "save the work rules". We don't really have any work rules to "save", and AAG isn't suggesting changing any of the existing work rules for the most part.

The vast majority of their asks are organizational, not really "work rules" related. It's already been dissected in other forums, but both the I/D combination and the HBT changes would result in about 100-300 positions lost out of 14,000+, but it could also have a net benefit too in terms of possible expansion of WB flying.

You need to understand how the whole MTA/JCBA thing works. There are some, from reading their posts, that seem to think the company's couple-page offer is their entire "contract", but that's not the case.

The current Green Book IS the contract, and their asks are simply amendments to that Green Book. If we accept this deal, we get the pay raise, and they get the modifications to the Green Book that they are seeking. Everything else already in the Green Book stays AS IS.

Essentially, this is the contract we are looking at right now:

Current MTA Green Book, except changes as follows:

- Replace current MTA pay language with Delta +7% begining 2 December 2014, with pay raises as listed by the company (i.e., 3% per year throughout the contract).
- International flying using FAR 117 HBT language
- International/Domestic divisions at LAA combined to be in line with LUS-E and LUS-W single-division structure
- Midnight sims for landing currency IF no other sim periods are available
- Replace "Reasonably available" with "promptly" for short-call
- Quarterly system bids instead of monthly (LAA...LUS is as-needed)
- Discussion of Cadillac healthcare tax and how to compensate pilots while keeping the plan value below the threshold (cost-neutral)
- One year contract extension (includes another 3% pay raise, however)

Additions to the Green Book:

- 2 years of LOS for furloughs
- Change of min duty period from 5:00 to 5:10 (minimal)
- Dropped mention of the 2 hour hard call out language
- Several other minor TAs such as passport fees paid, moving expenses, uniform expenses, etc.

All the other sections of the Green Book (and thus the current MTA) remain unmodified. So all this talk about "don't vote for it, you don't know what's in it" is not really true. Granted, we'll still need to see the final language to ensure nothing was snuck in (or out), but per the current proposal, no one is talking about eliminating trip rigs or any other current work rules other than the proposals listed above.


There are some very big issues in there that people say isn't that big of a deal. To the company it's a huge savings and going to be a drastic affect on our qol. That's why imo the bod is hung up on certain things. I am not going to give up huge savings to the company for nothing. People also haven't discussed the savings to the company with the plummeting longevity that is going to occur. A few bucks early is not worth that. Look at the actual rates. Most at best are a 10-15 dollar an hr change. Best case you're talking a grand a month gross. That isn't worth it to me to end up being behind the rest of the industry a few months down the road. Think to the future like WD said. My other problem with agreeing is that the term is too long. There will ultimately be some reason to not be financially able to pay us the money and get our rules back. Much better to take parity, keep green book and enter section 6 sooner. Dougy I'm sure will start to catch it from wall street should he have unstable groups.

Hueypilot
12-24-2014, 08:02 PM
Actually I tallied it up. Between now and through 2016, it'll cost me about $50,000 over two years. That's not a small amount of money.

Huge QOL issues? That's definitely debatable. I've heard all the doom and gloom, but here's the information that's out there:

HBT: Some flights may be flown with two pilots, but like Delta and United, they will likely retain 3 pilot crews for all flights east of Ireland due to flight time and duty time limits. They could possibly get away with some two-pilot crews beyond Ireland, but it would be close and there's no way the company is going to risk canceling flights over that kind of nonsense. They'll likely model Delta and United and keep the FB on most international flights.

There's a good chance that getting rid of the HBT language could allow international flying to grow as it did at Delta and United, meaning jobs could be added, not lost. In any case, the numbers I've seen involve possibly losing about 50 WB jobs (worst case).

International/Domestic fence: Legacy AA is the *only* company that still does this. It stems from a time when having a separate international division made sense based on the speed of the aircraft at the time and the training involved. Nowadays, there's really no need for it and it's become essentially a jobs program at AA. Again, our own union (APA) listed a worst-case outcome of about 100-300 jobs lost (out of 14,000+) due to consolidation. It would likely be less, given how they use reserves versus how a single division uses reserves. In either case, any net loss will be absorbed by the fact we're retiring 400 pilots per year over the next couple years, and that'll start ramping upwards to 900-1000 pilots just after 2020. Rumors that this will result in furloughs and "swinging gear as an E190 FO forever" are just really bad fear-mongering.

Midnight sims: Seriously? At most you'll do this four times a year. And if you're doing it, it's because you haven't really been flying the jet that much. Plus most international flights operate over this time period to begin with, so you should feel right at home. As someone who spent an entire 6 month course going to the sim at midnight and even 2am, this would only seem like a major QOL hit for the most work-averse amongst us.

"Promptly" versus "reasonably available": Delta uses "promptly", and the company dropped the hard 2 hour requirement. Why? Because their own flight operations management team stood up and said they don't want to spend hours and hours of their time having to discipline pilots over minor, arbitrary violations of some mythical hard line in the sand. They'd rather focus on other flight ops issues and deal with the real abusers. So the company dropped the time requirement. Anyone who thinks the company is just chomping at the bit to hammer every reserve pilot every day over this simply doesn't understand how busy Chief Pilots are. They seriously don't have the time to make a big deal over that. Just do what you're supposed to do and get to work as "promptly" as you can and it won't be a problem.

I heard one guy say "what if I'm on the other side of Charlotte and have to drive an hour back to my house to get ready?" Seriously? If you're on short call and you're taking a mini vacation with your family an hour away, you're not playing the game right. Maybe I'm doing it all wrong, but I keep my uniform ironed and ready and my bags packed when short call, and I try to stay within about 15-20 minutes of the crash pad. But I thought that's what I got paid to do...

One year extension: I'd call foul on this if they just wanted to extend it for nothing, but we get another 3% raise out of it. Assuming we didn't have the extension, there's no guarantee we'd get a raise in 2019 because the company doesn't have to give us a new contract in 2019. We could very well be negotiating for some time. At least they are willing to bump the pay up in return for the extra year.

LOS/Min Day/LTD, etc, or lack thereof: Yeah, I get it. We all want those things. Personally, I would like to see some of the LUS reserve system implemented in the Green Book. But the problem is we're not going to see ANY of that in arbitration. Cost-neutral, and all of those things are big-dollar items.

Regardless of what may be said, I'm not convinced that we can walk into arbitration and just slap down the Green Book and keep it that way. The entire purpose of this JCBA/arbitration is to combine the three contracts into one. I believe it's entirely possible the arbitrator could consider the company's requests (as listed above) and award them. The only catch is the arbitrator has to give us the value of those items in return. Sounds fair, right?

Yes, except that our own union has valued HBT and I/D combinations at $50 million per year, and those two things were the "high cost" items. The others are all negligible. So we'd get $50 million per year in realized benefit elsewhere (likely pay)...yet the company is offering us nearly $350 million per year if we work out a deal with them now. There's a real chance we could get screwed and the company gets what they want anyway, and we just get pennies on the dollar for what we could have had them for.

Here we are arguing over whether or not $350 million per year is worth $50 million in structural changes.

CanoePilot
12-24-2014, 08:20 PM
Negotiations are over. It's done, there is nothing more the company will offer or needs to offer. We aren't getting a min calender day and we are not getting group 3 for the 321 and with the offered pay rates the 319 at aa pays more than the 757 at delta and united.

Usapa sent out an email this afternoon and its pretty clear that we will get a 27% raise. That is a lot of money and none of these so called concessions are worth the amount of money the company is offering. Most of the things the company wants won't even affect a 1/4 of the airline. I'm not willing to give up all that money because someone can't get to the airport within 2 hours.

lax got it right and once again phl and clt reps are the largest agitators.

Firsttimeflyer
12-24-2014, 08:45 PM
I'm not AA, but am curious what happened with the scope language and what's in the company's offer?

Jupiter8
12-24-2014, 09:07 PM
Doug Parker can eat my 5h1T.

http://216.218.248.240/datastore/d2/34/t/d23470297ae4643f67ee2525780f6449.jpg

Saabs
12-25-2014, 05:28 AM
Negotiations are over. It's done, there is nothing more the company will offer or needs to offer. We aren't getting a min calender day and we are not getting group 3 for the 321 and with the offered pay rates the 319 at aa pays more than the 757 at delta and united.

Usapa sent out an email this afternoon and its pretty clear that we will get a 27% raise. That is a lot of money and none of these so called concessions are worth the amount of money the company is offering. Most of the things the company wants won't even affect a 1/4 of the airline. I'm not willing to give up all that money because someone can't get to the airport within 2 hours.

lax got it right and once again phl and clt reps are the largest agitators.

I believe the real negotiations begin once the arbitration starts.

There is a lot of uncertainty on the proposed rule changes, so I think apa needs to do a better job on informing us the best and worst case scenarios for each one. If there is a grey area, I'll be conservative and would rather keep status quo.

Even of delta or united have something , it doesn't mean AA will treat us with the same respect/interpretations as them. How many times has a rule been proposed to change that we are unsure about and it helps the pilot group? Rarely.

I came from colgan where we had no work rules before we got a contract (that lasted a year I think) so I think the order of most important aspects goes scope, work rules, then pay.

On C and R someone was saying how the midnight sim would be horrible for the 787. It's stuff like this I don't know and need to be educated on by apa.

Right now I'd vote no in a heartbeat. If they educate me and sell it properly of course I can be swayed to the other side. Only time will tell.

It's just irritating to see people come on here and just quote the pay difference. No voters aren't stupid, we know it's a difference.

I don't trust mamagement. I'm happy that texaspilot thinks they are really trying to do the right thing and just give him extra money. The rest of us live in the real world.....

That being said merry xmas from the great CLT airport! Can we get holiday pay?? :D

Hueypilot
12-25-2014, 08:56 AM
I keep hearing people say that..."the real negotiations begin once we start arbitration". And I ask why, and I'm told that we have something they want, namely HBT and I/D fences coming down.

Here's my take on that posture. First off, both of those things are probably on the company's "nice to have" list, not a "must have". They can run the company without those gives. So it comes down to "just how bad do they want it." I think that answer is about $350 million per year bad. They want it, but they aren't going to pay any price to get it.

It's just like anything else you or I would try to bargain for. Even if we really, really want something, we're not going to plunk down just any sum of money to get it. The truth is, in real dollar amounts, those two items combined are worth about $50 million per year. To the company, it's worth a little more because it means getting a solution earlier and being able to use that solution to make the airline more efficient. But even then, I just don't see them willing to give us full LOS, 5+ hour min calendar day and all the other expensive goodies that we want.

We have some leverage, sure. And that leverage is enough to get us Delta +7% with a couple years of LOS thrown in there for good measure. Those things alone are worth many times more than what the company is asking in return. That whole line about how the raise was a reward for being awesome pilots and employees? That's simply PR. You need to just forget that stuff and realize this whole thing is basically just a purchase deal, just like you'd buy a new car at a dealer. At some point all the flowery language goes out the window and you haggle over price point. Same thing here.

Sliceback
12-25-2014, 09:48 AM
STD of 66% from a low pay rate is more then 13% lower then 55% of AA's old rate. $83 vs $94.

Short call and on the 'other side of town'? Suitcase in car solves that. "But what about my wife?" Drive two cars, have her drop your off, or do that honey-do on your days off.

Hueypilot
12-25-2014, 10:29 AM
One of these days when I do live in base, if I'm sitting short call I'm pretty sure I can do 99% of the stuff I need to do within 30 minutes of the house. I think some guys are just coming up with some off-the-wall examples to make a point. And when it comes to the interpretation of "promptly", it's going to be flight ops management's task to do so. A chief pilot in Charlotte might not like 3 hours to show, while a chief pilot in NYC/MIA/LAX probably would be fine with 3 hours. I don't think those guys have the time or patience to hammer everyone all the time.

Hotel Pen
12-25-2014, 11:03 AM
So if it is agreed that 5hrs credit min per calendar day isn't happening in arbitration then the question becomes clear: Are HBT, intl/dom categories combined and midnight sims worth the tens of thousands of dollars that each pilot will lose in compsensation per year until 2019 if we go to arbitration?

For example: If you had the chance do to a 4hr non jeopardy sim session from 00:00 to 04:00 for $30,000 additional in gross pay would you do it?

It's not quite as simple as 'Stay strong and don't be tempted by the money.'

CanoePilot
12-25-2014, 03:31 PM
The current short call I think harms the long call system as it requires extra reserves as a backup. I don't see an issue with the two hour callout. It's just people who play the out of base game and cheat the system that are against it. There is always long call if you don't think you can make it in two hours.

Sign the mother [email protected] deal.

CanoePilot
12-25-2014, 03:36 PM
So if it is agreed that 5hrs credit min per calendar day isn't happening in arbitration then the question becomes clear: Are HBT, intl/dom categories combined and midnight sims worth the tens of thousands of dollars that each pilot will lose in compsensation per year until 2019 if we go to arbitration?



Yeah it is very much so. My price on those items was met a long time ago. It's insane not to take the deal because of few nonsense things that don't affect the majority.

eaglefly
12-25-2014, 04:24 PM
The current short call I think harms the long call system as it requires extra reserves as a backup. I don't see an issue with the two hour callout. It's just people who play the out of base game and cheat the system that are against it. There is always long call if you don't think you can make it in two hours.

Sign the mother [email protected] deal.

Long calls can and frequently do get assigned short-call. The 2-hour call out means many pilots will simply either have to mitigate commuting by getting local crash pads, hotels or stage themselves at halfway points during short-call. Don't forget it may take 30 minutes of inside airport transportation to get to sign in, so couple that with 30 minutes to get ready (provided you're spring-loaded, already packed and sitting at home with your phone in your hand), most pilots will have to be within 1 hours drive time to the airport.

That's a pretty small percentage of pilots. Most pilots who aren't already line holding captains already will suffer if they want to transition to Group IV FO or upgrade to captain at the first opportunity. It's going to be a disaster for many pilots.

Unfortunately, some pilots are so intoxicated with pleasure at the thought if instant financial gratification, they've masturbated themselves into denial. It's just a suggestion, but I'd clean my shoes off before going out in public if I were you.

Hueypilot
12-25-2014, 04:51 PM
They've dropped the two-hour language. It's now just "promptly" with no defined time. And like I've stated before, the chief pilots have better things to do than sit there at the entrance to the crew room with stop watches every day.

inline five
12-25-2014, 05:04 PM
Personally, I'd rather have a cold set in stone time frame because it allows you to plan. What is "prompt"? I would say anything inside of 2 hours from call to show would be darn good, but I don't really know what they want by that.

The Airways 90 mins normal driving time to the airport lot was actually pretty decent for their bases. I understand with AA it wouldn't be ideal, one could make it 2 hours or something normal driving time for specific bases. Keep in mind it wasn't a 90 min call out, just that you had to be within that 90 min ring around the airport.

None of the reserve language I've operated under specified to "push", it was always a call out to be on airport property. You of course have to check in, read mail, update your iPad, look at weather, etc. etc.

I would think *most* people on property are professional about it and aren't laying tile getting a quick call and finish the job, 3 hours later they head to the airport, etc. However that is why there is a CP.

Saying it will only effect a small amount of the pilot group is a ridiculous argument. So does the 190 and look how everyone feels about that. Hell the company can't even staff it.

Jetdriver7
12-25-2014, 05:11 PM
Yeah it is very much so. My price on those items was met a long time ago. It's insane not to take the deal because of few nonsense things that don't affect the majority.

The hbt is going to allow the company to send fewer crew on intl and then sit longer to acclimate you without paying you so u can operate back. Basically going to make intl trips like our red eyes. Working more days for the same amount/less pay. That's the problem with some of these not so important issues. Out for 3 days on red eyes being paid 11 hrs is egregious.

Hueypilot
12-25-2014, 05:34 PM
Personally, I'd rather have a cold set in stone time frame because it allows you to plan. What is "prompt"? I would say anything inside of 2 hours from call to show would be darn good, but I don't really know what they want by that.

The Airways 90 mins normal driving time to the airport lot was actually pretty decent for their bases. I understand with AA it wouldn't be ideal, one could make it 2 hours or something normal driving time for specific bases. Keep in mind it wasn't a 90 min call out, just that you had to be within that 90 min ring around the airport.

None of the reserve language I've operated under specified to "push", it was always a call out to be on airport property. You of course have to check in, read mail, update your iPad, look at weather, etc. etc.

I would think *most* people on property are professional about it and aren't laying tile getting a quick call and finish the job, 3 hours later they head to the airport, etc. However that is why there is a CP.

Saying it will only effect a small amount of the pilot group is a ridiculous argument. So does the 190 and look how everyone feels about that. Hell the company can't even staff it.

LAA has had very vague language for some time. "Reasonably available" I think it says. Prompt would give the company some leverage to go after the chronic feet-draggers who take 3-4 hours to show up or attempt to commute in on short call (I've heard of it happening).

As for the E190...that's an easy fix. Raise the pay and they will come (fly it).

Thedude
12-25-2014, 05:36 PM
They've dropped the two-hour language. It's now just "promptly" with no defined time. And like I've stated before, the chief pilots have better things to do than sit there at the entrance to the crew room with stop watches every day.

It starts out as no defined time and then these things take on a life of there own. In a few years, promptly will have an un-written rule that will become smaller and smaller. It also opens the door to airport standby.

Seen this train wreck before.


The current short call I think harms the long call system as it requires extra reserves as a backup. I don't see an issue with the two hour callout. It's just people who play the out of base game and cheat the system that are against it. There is always long call if you don't think you can make it in two hours.


How about all of the times I have been reassigned to short call.
I bid long call because I do not like being on the short call leash. Now, under the proposal you want to sign, I would have to get a crash pad or move even though I live with the 90 min radius.
Yes it takes a min of 2 hour to get to Ops if I was sitting at home in my uniform.
You want to punish about 10-15% of the company because you want your money now.


Yeah it is very much so. My price on those items was met a long time ago. It's insane not to take the deal because of few nonsense things that don't affect the majority.

It may not effect YOU, TODAY, but sometime in the future it will.

Just like the whole LTD thing.
LTD is not important until you need it.


For example: If you had the chance do to a 4hr non jeopardy sim session from 00:00 to 04:00 for $30,000 additional in gross pay would you do it?


It starts out as a non-jeopardy event and in a few years it morphs into a full blown ride.
Saw a guy at my last company bust a "3 bounces ride", he showed up for bounces and was subjected to a full-on checkride and not the AQP style either.

eaglefly
12-25-2014, 05:42 PM
They've dropped the two-hour language. It's now just "promptly" with no defined time. And like I've stated before, the chief pilots have better things to do than sit there at the entrance to the crew room with stop watches every day.

The term is "available promptly". On the negotiations tab on the APA website, select "JCBA update" and you'll see the definition there is that it means "generally available within 2 hours". So far, that's that only definition that exists. Until we get a more specific definition that contradicts or supports that one, we don't know what the final definition is. That's what the MEC will be doing........determining the fine print to properly evaluate exactly what they are considering.

Inexplicably, some here apparently don't want any of that nonsense and demand the BOD stop being a BOD and just get anything that gives them an opportunity to vote yes to anything that gets quick cash into their hot little hands and who cares about the future.

Nothing will change in 2020.......well, actually it will be years beyond that with the usual stall tactics perfected by management.

Jetdriver7
12-25-2014, 05:48 PM
Spot on for reasons to not accept. Guys need to look into some of these "insignificant issues". The company isn't asking for it for no reason. The excuse that the cpo doesn't have the time to police shorter times. I guarantee they'll have the time when the order to police it comes down from the top. That is flat out denial of what is being asked for and very poor negotiating. This is why the BoD is on the job.

Hueypilot
12-25-2014, 05:54 PM
It starts out as no defined time and then these things take on a life of there own. In a few years, promptly will have an un-written rule that will become smaller and smaller. It also opens the door to airport standby.


OK, I don't see how you're turning this into us doing airport standby. AA's current language is also "undefined". LUS has 90 minutes driving time, but apparently there's flex in that as well.

The whole scare tactic of "this will have us doing airport standby" is a bit overblown. Like I said...Flight Ops management intervened and stated they can't do the defined callout. You guys need to chill, you seem to think that the Chief Pilots sit around bored all day and are just chomping at the bit to harass pilots over being a couple minutes late. The only time I've heard that any of this has become an issue are guys who push 3 hours to get to the airport.

Hueypilot
12-25-2014, 05:57 PM
It starts out as a non-jeopardy event and in a few years it morphs into a full blown ride.

Saw a guy at my last company bust a "3 bounces ride", he showed up for bounces and was subjected to a full-on checkride and not the AQP style either.

Again, overblown. Seriously, you think that they are going to turn landing currency rides into check rides on a regular basis? What are you smoking? They are already scrambling to get enough check airmen on the schedule for the normal load of CQT/Initial Qual, etc. Now you think that those guys are going to be crawling all over the landing currency sim?

As for LTD...yeah, I agree with you, it would be great to have better LTD. But in this environment we lack real leverage to push them to improve it. Good LTD is expensive, and they aren't willing to pay for it. They want the HBT and I/D changes...but they aren't willing to pay any amount to get it.

eaglefly
12-25-2014, 06:00 PM
LAA has had very vague language for some time. "Reasonably available" I think it says. Prompt would give the company some leverage to go after the chronic feet-draggers who take 3-4 hours to show up or attempt to commute in on short call (I've heard of it happening).

As for the E190...that's an easy fix. Raise the pay and they will come (fly it).

Using a broad brush to paint all the LAA reserve pilots as "feet-draggers" in need of a good spanking is pathetic. I can't wait for 7-8 years to roll around for our next "roll over or take a stand moment" when I'm close to retirement and guys like me look to flip this situation in reverse. I'll join the "it's good enough for me, I demand a vote now" crowd even if the younger, more junior pilots make the sacrifices.

Hope you're not too young and junior, because next time, it will be the older majority not interested in taking a stand or risk to concern ourselves just like many are now. 2022-24 will just be a repeat of today when many will be demanding the MEC take whatever's offered no matter how crappy or whether we could do better and get it to them to vote and now !

In 7-8 years, perhaps 4000 pilots may be hired, but the majority of the remaining 10,000 or so will be late 50's to mid 60's and Parker will know we aren't interested in taking ANY stand or risk and he will EASILY divide us (just like now), so if you're younger, the next contract is going to suck even worse, because guys like me won't be interested in fights or long, drawn out conflicts.

We'll agree to gut the contract further and take the cash for our last few years and be JUST like those who are doing it now. History will repeat itself and what comes around goes around. I'll laugh my a$$ off when that happens and it WILL happen.

Hueypilot
12-25-2014, 06:01 PM
Spot on for reasons to not accept. Guys need to look into some of these "insignificant issues". The company isn't asking for it for no reason. The excuse that the cpo doesn't have the time to police shorter times. I guarantee they'll have the time when the order to police it comes down from the top. That is flat out denial of what is being asked for and very poor negotiating. This is why the BoD is on the job.

Look, "promptly" is about as vague as "reasonably available" or "90 minutes driving time" (current LUS language). As far as I know, we don't have sky Nazi CPOs nabbing naughty pilots for showing up 1 minute too late. Suddenly you think they'll just shift into overdrive and start disciplining people left and right? Why? Just to cause chaos?

And just because the company wants something doesn't mean they are necessarily out to get it to screw you. They want to make the ship more efficient. Delta/United are both organized in the same manner that management wants to organize us. They know that, and they want to level the playing field and get rid of unnecessary inefficiencies. There is absolutely no reason to have separate I/D divisions. And I seriously doubt they'll go to 2-pilot crews to Europe simply because that's right there on the fringe and there's too many things that would make that operation illegal in a heartbeat. They'll keep 3-pilot crews to nearly all the European destinations just like DL and UA did.

Hueypilot
12-25-2014, 06:03 PM
Using a broad brush to paint all the LAA reserve pilots as "feet-draggers" in need of a good spanking is pathetic. I can't wait for 7-8 years to roll around for our next "roll over or take a stand moment" when I'm close to retirement and guys like me look to flip this situation in reverse. I'll join the "it's good enough for me, I demand a vote now" crowd even if the younger, more junior pilots make the sacrifices.

Hope you're not too young and junior, because next time, it will be the older majority not interested in taking a stand or risk to concern ourselves just like many are now. 2023-25 will just be a repeat of today when many will be demanding the MEC take whatever's offered no matter how crappy or whether we could do better and get it to them to vote and now !

In 7-8 years, perhaps 4000 pilots may be hired, but the majority of the remaining 10,000 or so will be late 50's to mid 60's and Parker will know we aren't interested in taking ANY stand or risk, so if you're younger, the next contract is going to suck even worse, because guys like me won't be interested in fights or long, drawn out conflicts.

We'll gut the contract and take the cash for our last few years and be JUST like those who are doing it now. History will repeat itself and what vines around goes around.

Chill out. I did NOT call all LAA reserve pilots "feet draggers". But undeniably there are one or two at every airline that push the limits.

Hueypilot
12-25-2014, 06:05 PM
The hbt is going to allow the company to send fewer crew on intl and then sit longer to acclimate you without paying you so u can operate back. Basically going to make intl trips like our red eyes. Working more days for the same amount/less pay. That's the problem with some of these not so important issues. Out for 3 days on red eyes being paid 11 hrs is egregious.

Min calendar day would fix that. The only problem is I don't believe there's any real way to force their hand to give us min calendar day at this juncture. I think our best shot at getting that went out the window when the BOD flung the $2.5 billion grenade back at the company.

Saabs
12-25-2014, 06:11 PM
The current short call I think harms the long call system as it requires extra reserves as a backup. I don't see an issue with the two hour callout. It's just people who play the out of base game and cheat the system that are against it. There is always long call if you don't think you can make it in two hours.

Sign the mother [email protected] deal.

You realize you are going against 9000 legacy pilots traditions and work rules on that?

It's worked just fine. Flights weren't getting cancelled at insane rates with their callouts.

I've tried to reason with you, but you are texas pilot 2.0

Do some mother [email protected] research before you post.

bassslayer
12-25-2014, 06:19 PM
Look, "promptly" is about as vague as "reasonably available" or "90 minutes driving time" (current LUS language). As far as I know, we don't have sky Nazi CPOs nabbing naughty pilots for showing up 1 minute too late. Suddenly you think they'll just shift into overdrive and start disciplining people left and right? Why? Just to cause chaos?

And just because the company wants something doesn't mean they are necessarily out to get it to screw you. They want to make the ship more efficient. Delta/United are both organized in the same manner that management wants to organize us. They know that, and they want to level the playing field and get rid of unnecessary inefficiencies. There is absolutely no reason to have separate I/D divisions. And I seriously doubt they'll go to 2-pilot crews to Europe simply because that's right there on the fringe and there's too many things that would make that operation illegal in a heartbeat. They'll keep 3-pilot crews to nearly all the European destinations just like DL and UA did.

Not sure what your background is prior to coming here but i'm guessing maybe military? Either you have very little airline experience or are very naive. I don't mean to sound insulting but I'll give you some advice for the future. The company WILL use vague contractual language to a$$ rape you at every opportunity. If they CAN do something, they WILL, and it will NEVER be to your benefit.

Saabs
12-25-2014, 06:33 PM
Min calendar day would fix that. The only problem is I don't believe there's any real way to force their hand to give us min calendar day at this juncture. I think our best shot at getting that went out the window when the BOD flung the $2.5 billion grenade back at the company.

Your absolutely right min calendar pay would fix that. Right now it's not looking like we are close to getting it. So if you want to have a future doing international flying, you need to vote no. Thanks for pointing this out!

Saabs
12-25-2014, 06:34 PM
Not sure what your background is prior to coming here but i'm guessing maybe military? Either you have very little airline experience or are very naive. I don't mean to sound insulting but I'll give you some advice for the future. The company WILL use vague contractual language to a$$ rape you at every opportunity. If they CAN do something, they WILL, and it will NEVER be to your benefit.
Nooooope texaspilot said dougie and Co is giving us money because they know it's the right thing to do! Trust management!!

ERflyer
12-25-2014, 06:35 PM
Good post WD.

I think people don't realize that we have the option to retain all current work rules in arbitration by keeping the green book.

I'm in my mid thirties so I have a few years left here. You rarely get things back once you give them up, so let's make it worth while.

International/domestic split given up for calendar day? Yeah that might be worth thinking about.

I'm on a 4 day right now. It's worth 17 hours, at other carriers it would be worth at minimum just under 21 hours.

This airline has too many red eyes to not have calendar day pay. And to yes voters, yes I know we won't get calendar pay in arbitration.

I believe both sides want a deal. Jan 3 deadline for the retro pay? I can live without it. That's a scare tactic. They want things from us. Does anyone really think they want a domestic and international little bus division? There is some leverage, am so think the deal will sweeten.

The overnight sim thing ? I don't do international wide body so I don't know much about it, but I'll listen to APA on it. Someone keeps brining up how it is a big deal with the 787 coming online. So let's not just give it up without proper research or compensation.

Attacks get personal on here and they shouldn't. I just want people to take a step back and realize this contract will echoe for the rest or their careers and those behind them. Let's not be blinded by pay rates a year early. We have some leverage and don't even know what the APA has in store yet. Their press release yesterday didn't show their cards at all.

Everyone here knows we aren't going to get deltas current compensation let alone their new contracts. To the yes voters compensation is different than pay rates.

It's not over yet, not even by a mile. But in the end, I am ok with the green book and prepared for it.

At Delta a four day is worth minimum 21:00 @ 5:15/day.

Hueypilot
12-25-2014, 06:39 PM
Not sure what your background is prior to coming here but i'm guessing maybe military? Either you have very little airline experience or are very naive. I don't mean to sound insulting but I'll give you some advice for the future. The company WILL use vague contractual language to a$$ rape you at every opportunity. If they CAN do something, they WILL, and it will NEVER be to your benefit.

Yeah, I did come from the military. And as much b*tching as I hear, this job is actually pretty damn good.

Where I came from, we deployed to crappy places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait...the list goes on. We got to sleep in dorm rooms with 4 dudes in it. One of those dorms was across from a landmark known as the "poo pond". I had a rocket land 25 feet from my room, failed to detonate and bounced over the concrete wall and exploded on the other side.

Flying involved showing up to fly in 120 degree heat wearing ballistic vests, helmets, gloves, etc. Flew 18 hour duty days, landed at sunrise after flying all night on NVGs and then got to go do "camp clean up" since technically we weren't "working" anymore...got to listen to the non-flying office workers complain that we smelled...probably because my flight suit had been drenched in sweat for the better part of 16 hours. Finally got to go to sleep after being awake for nearly 24 hours. Got hour 12 hours of rest and then went back out the door for another 16-18 hours of bouncing around various sh*tholes. On top of that, we got to deal with all the other office and various other military queep.

I spent a total of about 3 years deployed, flying those schedules. We'd come home for 4-6 months, and spend 2-3 months of that time TDY to attend various schools or attend exercises...so we really didn't get to spend a whole lot of time with momma and the kids. Two of those deployments involved a 365-day stint flying with Iraqis crews that constantly tried to find new ways of killing you in an airplane, and another was a 7-monther where I flew half the time and spent the other half walking around Afghanistan with a 9mm trying to recover wrecked aircraft.

I'll edit to add that I spent a number of years teaching at the schoolhouse too. That was a "good deal" assignment because you typically didn't deploy (much). But that involved flying 4 times a week, and as the new guy I got stuck flying nights for nearly a year. Teaching kids with 200 hours total time flying on NVGs, showing up at 4pm and going home at 4am, and waking up at noon to do it over again. Day 5 (we couldn't fly 5 nights in a row, that was unsafe) was spent teaching ground school. By the weekend, I was beat up and didn't have energy to do much. Flying days was better but was pretty much the same...we had to show up at 5am and I usually left to go home around 5pm. All of our sorties were 5 hours with students in the seat flying at 300' in formation. You were often worn out.

We sat alpha alert sometimes. That's one hour from the call to wheels up. We had leadership who would have slide shows to the commanders showing how often our alphas were late for takeoff, and as the aircraft commander we had to explain why. We often sat bravo alert, which was a hard 2 hours from the call to show time. Very rarely did we ever get charlie alert, which would be called "long call" around here.

When I went through my last military initial qual course, all my sims were at midnight or 2 am...for 4 months in a row. Sometimes our annual CRM sims (military version of CQT) would be at midnight as well. And back then I was a captain making about $75-80,000 a year. Now we've got a political climate where military retirement may go away, and they are already cutting military pay and benefits right and left (or trying to).

Then I come here and guys are making double what I made in the military, working half the time and complaining about midnight currency sims and haggling over callout times.

I'm certainly not a company man, and I think corporate leadership in this country is lacking...they are typically all about the money for the most part. I would certainly object to any language I thought was onerous for sure. But I think it's a little ridiculous to talk to me as if I came from the land of rainbows and unicorns and have to learn how to really roll up my sleeves now that I'm at an airline.

The only thing about this job that sucks so far is commuting, and I do that to myself.

** I wanted to add that this isn't meant to bust anyone's chops over the military vs airline thing. I think I just wanted to point out that despite the arguments about what's best for the airline in these negotiations/arbitration, we've actually got it pretty good. Pilots love to b!tch, I know that as a fact. But I think about what I was doing and what I'm doing now and I feel lucky.

Diesel1030
12-25-2014, 07:04 PM
Min credit day is reason enough not to vote for this. I could really use the money but it blows my mind that the largest legacy in the country producing the most profits doesn't have it. Heck... My cheap LCC had 5hr min day. I guess everyone here has no issues working 18-20 days a month.:confused::confused::eek:

Also what's the deal with the squeeze? Let's stop letting them negotiate with the membership and let our BOD do their job.

Hueypilot
12-25-2014, 07:13 PM
Min calendar day would be great. But I don't see us getting that in arbitration, and at this point I don't see the company budging on it before the end of February.

Diesel1030
12-25-2014, 07:27 PM
Min calendar day would be great. But I don't see us getting that in arbitration, and at this point I don't see the company budging on it before the end of February.

No problem... I'm patient I'd rather go through arb with the greenbook sacrificing no work rules and take my pay in 2016. Will it be less than what is currently offered? Yes, but I think we are underestimating the qol and costs associated with them. I think we all need to let the BOD/NC do their DD and pass their opinion of the offer. Currently the membership is too emotionally invested ($$$$) to see the true pros/cons/ valuations.

This is a big vote.. We should all be asking ourselves why the company is giving us no time to road show it etc like the F/A. It's a tactic right out of Glass's play book.

Hueypilot
12-25-2014, 07:47 PM
No problem... I'm patient I'd rather go through arb with the greenbook sacrificing no work rules and take my pay in 2016. Will it be less than what is currently offered? Yes, but I think we are underestimating the qol and costs associated with them. I think we all need to let the BOD/NC do their DD and pass their opinion of the offer. Currently the membership is too emotionally invested ($$$$) to see the true pros/cons/ valuations.

This is a big vote.. We should all be asking ourselves why the company is giving us no time to road show it etc like the F/A. It's a tactic right out of Glass's play book.

Management is always going to try to squeeze the vote, regardless. It's not just Glass's play book, it's negotiating 101. Car dealers use it all the time.

That being said, some people may be blinded by money and that's all they see. But some of us have tried to objectively look at the overall picture and make a judgment call. Much of what I use to make up my mind has actually come from APA's own discussions about the various issues. I just think based on history that there are some hardliners (namely the LUS-East guys) on the BOD that will probably stiff-arm nearly any company proposal and they resent *anything* the company is asking for regardless of what it's worth, what they are willing to give for it, or how it impacts us.

And the fact we have cost-neutral binding arbitration plays no small role in some people's thought processes. Do we take the money and keep most of the Green Book in place? Or do we keep all of the Green Book in place for substantially less? That's essentially where we are at now.

For the record, I've now heard people claim that flight ops will suddenly turn into a medieval house of horrors with continuous, non-stop beatings upon late pilots. Why? No one can really explain why management would do that other than "because".

I've read how midnight currency sims will suddenly turn into full-blown OTD/CLO sims complete with check rides with a check airman. Why? "Because".

I've read how the loss of perhaps 200-300 jobs (APA's number) by combining divisions will result in new guys like me being displaced to the E190 and swinging gear on that airplane for 15 years, with little or no hope of ever becoming captain. Nevermind that in 15 years, 2/3s of the seniority list will be gone...according to them, I'm still going to be a lowly narrow-body FO with this change implemented.

I've read that removing HBT language means that most of Europe will now be flown by 2-pilot crews. Nevermind that most of that flying is 8-9 hours of block time, which runs right up against the maximum flight time limits...a simple airborne delay requiring a holding pattern will now make that entire operation illegal. But people think the company will do it. Nevermind that UA and DL did away with HBT but still fly nearly all Europe flights with 3 pilots...why? Because with 3 pilots there's never a question of legality. But some people here are convinced the company will do that, "because they can".

I've even read many state that the extra year tacked onto the contract is a no-go for them because it's "an extra year for free". Nevermind the 3% pay raise, or the fact that Parker/Kirby are under no requirements to have a new contract in place by then.

Anyways...those are *my* thoughts on the issues. It's easy to get bent out of shape and assume the worst about everything. But much of the language in this deal is essentially the same language LUS-East currently has, and it's not all cats-and-dogs-living-together and brimstone over here. Just something to consider. And FWIW, I'm fully prepared to exist off of the MTA pay...I'm not desperate.

fr8tmastr
12-25-2014, 11:07 PM
hueypilot.

I do appreciate your service and the sacrifices you and others have made, my hat is off to you.

However Doug is not uncle Sam, and we are not defending freedom, we are here to make a buc. Doug is here to make millions, he and his cut throat bean counters WILL take every penny they can from all. Why you ask, because its their job! They don't care about you any further than if you are well enough to move a plane. They count on you and your integrity to make sacrifices to make sure their bonuses keep on rolling in. You are a fool to apply your integrity and honor to management, they don't have any!
You posted the CPO has better things to do than watch your check in time. In case you forgot, or were not here, about 5 years or so ago they did just that. They used Map quest or similar to plot pilots locations to verify they were withing the 90. So yes they can, will and have done exactly what you say they wont.
If the language they want is "essentially the same" as current then why change it? That question alone should raise your eyebrows.
A contract is so much more than an hourly wage, sure we will make an extra nickel, but I guarantee we will pay for that raise with other parts of the contract. That is how management especially this group does business. If we get an extra 5K per year, that will be paid for with 5k in concessions in other parts.
As far as I am concerned, I am tired of playing directly into the hand of management. They use the exact same play book every single time and yet so many never see it:confused:

eaglefly
12-26-2014, 03:04 AM
hueypilot.

I do appreciate your service and the sacrifices you and others have made, my hat is off to you.

However Doug is not uncle Sam, and we are not defending freedom, we are here to make a buc. Doug is here to make millions, he and his cut throat bean counters WILL take every penny they can from all. Why you ask, because its their job! They don't care about you any further than if you are well enough to move a plane. They count on you and your integrity to make sacrifices to make sure their bonuses keep on rolling in. You are a fool to apply your integrity and honor to management, they don't have any!
You posted the CPO has better things to do than watch your check in time. In case you forgot, or were not here, about 5 years or so ago they did just that. They used Map quest or similar to plot pilots locations to verify they were withing the 90. So yes they can, will and have done exactly what you say they wont.
If the language they want is "essentially the same" as current then why change it? That question alone should raise your eyebrows.
A contract is so much more than an hourly wage, sure we will make an extra nickel, but I guarantee we will pay for that raise with other parts of the contract. That is how management especially this group does business. If we get an extra 5K per year, that will be paid for with 5k in concessions in other parts.
As far as I am concerned, I am tired of playing directly into the hand of management. They use the exact same play book every single time and yet so many never see it:confused:

Exactly. One of the problems involves people wandering in from non-airline environments and applying inapplicable concepts. Ultimately, undefined language like the callout term will end up being challenged as a result of a grievance and traditional arbitrations almost always favor management interpretation of vague, undefined contractual language. The "available promptly" call out term is an unexploded mine.

sailingfun
12-26-2014, 03:26 AM
Exactly. One of the problems involves people wandering in from non-airline environments and applying inapplicable concepts. Ultimately, undefined language like the callout term will end up being challenged as a result of a grievance and traditional arbitrations almost always favor management interpretation of vague, undefined contractual language. The "available promptly" call out term is an unexploded mine.

We have used that term for 30 years at Delta with no issues. If you set a hard number you open pilots up for discipline for being 1 minute late. The term comes with a defined industry standard that any neutral in a hearing will have to fall back on.

Jetdriver7
12-26-2014, 03:50 AM
Min calendar day would fix that. The only problem is I don't believe there's any real way to force their hand to give us min calendar day at this juncture. I think our best shot at getting that went out the window when the BOD flung the $2.5 billion grenade back at the company.

Your absolutely right about it fixing it. If they aren't biting on it I am not going to accept the concession on hbt. Like I said if they can send fewer pilots they will and you will be acclimated to a different theater while spending more days away. We need language that will incentivize the company to build efficient trips. An airline wants crews on the road without any penalty. I'm not trying to play lawyer but you make many statements to the extent that they could do this, but it's not smart etc. Eventually it will be done. Trusting them to maintain the status quo/do the right/intelligent thing will not happen. If it's not in writing do not bank on it. I know they want this domestic/intl division merged badly. I personally believe the closer we get we will see improvements. I'm alright making concessions to align with delta/united but not for free. We will never make what delta does b/c of the work rules here. Pay caps are the first biggest problem. Delta can credit far over 100hrs for a month. Theses rates aren't even close to putting us on top.

Route66
12-26-2014, 03:58 AM
Yeah, I did come from the military. And as much b*tching as I hear, this job is actually pretty damn good.

Where I came from, we deployed to crappy places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait...the list goes on. We got to sleep in dorm rooms with 4 dudes in it. One of those dorms was across from a landmark known as the "poo pond". I had a rocket land 25 feet from my room, failed to detonate and bounced over the concrete wall and exploded on the other side.

Flying involved showing up to fly in 120 degree heat wearing ballistic vests, helmets, gloves, etc. Flew 18 hour duty days, landed at sunrise after flying all night on NVGs and then got to go do "camp clean up" since technically we weren't "working" anymore...got to listen to the non-flying office workers complain that we smelled...probably because my flight suit had been drenched in sweat for the better part of 16 hours. Finally got to go to sleep after being awake for nearly 24 hours. Got hour 12 hours of rest and then went back out the door for another 16-18 hours of bouncing around various sh*tholes. On top of that, we got to deal with all the other office and various other military queep.

I spent a total of about 3 years deployed, flying those schedules. We'd come home for 4-6 months, and spend 2-3 months of that time TDY to attend various schools or attend exercises...so we really didn't get to spend a whole lot of time with momma and the kids. Two of those deployments involved a 365-day stint flying with Iraqis crews that constantly tried to find new ways of killing you in an airplane, and another was a 7-monther where I flew half the time and spent the other half walking around Afghanistan with a 9mm trying to recover wrecked aircraft.

I'll edit to add that I spent a number of years teaching at the schoolhouse too. That was a "good deal" assignment because you typically didn't deploy (much). But that involved flying 4 times a week, and as the new guy I got stuck flying nights for nearly a year. Teaching kids with 200 hours total time flying on NVGs, showing up at 4pm and going home at 4am, and waking up at noon to do it over again. Day 5 (we couldn't fly 5 nights in a row, that was unsafe) was spent teaching ground school. By the weekend, I was beat up and didn't have energy to do much. Flying days was better but was pretty much the same...we had to show up at 5am and I usually left to go home around 5pm. All of our sorties were 5 hours with students in the seat flying at 300' in formation. You were often worn out.

We sat alpha alert sometimes. That's one hour from the call to wheels up. We had leadership who would have slide shows to the commanders showing how often our alphas were late for takeoff, and as the aircraft commander we had to explain why. We often sat bravo alert, which was a hard 2 hours from the call to show time. Very rarely did we ever get charlie alert, which would be called "long call" around here.

When I went through my last military initial qual course, all my sims were at midnight or 2 am...for 4 months in a row. Sometimes our annual CRM sims (military version of CQT) would be at midnight as well. And back then I was a captain making about $75-80,000 a year. Now we've got a political climate where military retirement may go away, and they are already cutting military pay and benefits right and left (or trying to).

Then I come here and guys are making double what I made in the military, working half the time and complaining about midnight currency sims and haggling over callout times.

I'm certainly not a company man, and I think corporate leadership in this country is lacking...they are typically all about the money for the most part. I would certainly object to any language I thought was onerous for sure. But I think it's a little ridiculous to talk to me as if I came from the land of rainbows and unicorns and have to learn how to really roll up my sleeves now that I'm at an airline.

The only thing about this job that sucks so far is commuting, and I do that to myself.

** I wanted to add that this isn't meant to bust anyone's chops over the military vs airline thing. I think I just wanted to point out that despite the arguments about what's best for the airline in these negotiations/arbitration, we've actually got it pretty good. Pilots love to b!tch, I know that as a fact. But I think about what I was doing and what I'm doing now and I feel lucky.

I've been here for quite some time. Nice to read something from someone who's been i the real world. They didn't make you dig foxholes on occasion, did they?

eaglefly
12-26-2014, 05:26 AM
We have used that term for 30 years at Delta with no issues. If you set a hard number you open pilots up for discipline for being 1 minute late. The term comes with a defined industry standard that any neutral in a hearing will have to fall back on.

As it stands now, "2 hours" is the only hard number referenced. Besides, you have Anderson along with other ethical leaders, we have Parker who is a manager.

sailingfun
12-26-2014, 05:33 AM
As it stands now, "90 minutes" is the only hard number referenced. Besides, you have Anderson, we have Parker.

Promptly available has always been interpreted as approximently two hours under normal driving conditions. We have had it for many CEO's besides Anderson including a infamous pilot hater. If you ever have to take that term through the grievance process you will do just fine with the neutral. Lots of precedence at several airlines.

PurpleTurtle
12-26-2014, 05:35 AM
4% payraises to people who didn't ask for a penny...

And Parker /Glass has pilots arguing over how fast we should give them a bucket load of concessions....

Fcok Parker. He gets his Delta industry standard concessions when he pays for them with Delta industry standard compensation. He needs the concessions, and he can easily afford to pay for them.

asacimesp
12-26-2014, 05:36 AM
If there's one thing I've learned in my relatively short time in the airlines (11 years) it's that if there is nothing in a contract/MOU that specifically forbids a company from doing something... Then it is fair game. An arbitrator/mediator in a grievance hearing is only looking for contract violations. If it is not specifically forbid then you will hear "well it's not addressed... Management has the right to run the operation as they deem best". I've seen way too many "reinterpretations" and failed grievances that seemed on the surface to be cut and dry go the wrong way.

eaglefly
12-26-2014, 05:36 AM
Promptly available has always been interpreted as approximently two hours under normal driving conditions. We have had it for many CEO's besides Anderson including a infamous pilot hater. If you ever have to take that term through the grievance process you will do just fine with the neutral. Lots of precedence at several airlines.

Sorry, I prefer the BOD to ferret out specific language regarding its meaning and intent vs. blowing it off and squabbling about it later. If pilots are going to end up voting on something, they're entitled to know all the fine print BEFORE checking a box then after it.

eaglefly
12-26-2014, 05:38 AM
If there's one thing I've learned in my relatively short time in the airlines (11 years) it's that if there is nothing in a contract/MOU that specifically forbids a company from doing something... Then it is fair game. An arbitrator/mediator in a grievance hearing is only looking for contract violations. If it is not specifically addressed or forbid then you will hear "well... Management has the right to run the operation as they deem best". I've seen way too many "reinterpretations" and failed grievances that seemed on the surface to be cut and dry go the wrong way.

Also, what is occurs at one specific carrier doesn't necessarily qualify as "precedent". Right now, 2 hours is the only figure.

PurpleTurtle
12-26-2014, 05:40 AM
Promptly available has always been interpreted as approximently two hours under normal driving conditions. We have had it for many CEO's besides Anderson including a infamous pilot hater. If you ever have to take that term through the grievance process you will do just fine with the neutral. Lots of precedence at several airlines.

Doug can have the seven changes he wants to the contract whenever he gives us just one or two changes that we are asking for.

So far he is just demanding. His profits are better than Delta. He needs to at least pay some Delta standard contract items. Anything else is unacceptable.

PurpleTurtle
12-26-2014, 05:47 AM
At Delta a four day is worth minimum 21:00 @ 5:15/day.

Currently at USAir we have many three days paying 10 hours and many four days paying 15 or 16hours, some even less . .. Just wait till PBS and HBT kick in.. We will have many unpaid 36 hour layovers ... And in international, with one less relief pilot.

sailingfun
12-26-2014, 05:53 AM
Currently at USAir we have many three days paying 10 hours and many four days paying 15 or 16hours, some even less . .. Just wait till PBS and HBT kick in.. We will have many unpaid 36 hour layovers ... And in international, with one less relief pilot.

At Delta we actually added relief pilots on some prior two man routes as a result of the very short duty day allowed with two man ops under 117. Again something I would not worry to much about.
The 5:15 daily minimum is however turning out to be a really good thing especially when they are building rotations for irregular ops. It's the one issue that I would push hard to get!

LIOG41
12-26-2014, 06:19 AM
Calendar day with current offer. Done.

Just trust them
12-26-2014, 06:25 AM
Currently at USAir we have many three days paying 10 hours and many four days paying 15 or 16hours, some even less . .. Just wait till PBS and HBT kick in.. We will have many unpaid 36 hour layovers ... And in international, with one less relief pilot.


Exactly why the work rules are so critical. Most especially the rigs.

Pay = Pay-rate x Hours.

It never ceases to amaze how stupidly pilots think 'Pay' is the 'Pay-rate'.

The proposed duty rig means that the 4-day trip you fly now, which pays 19 hrs x Pay-rate, will pay 10:20hrs x Pay-rate.

This management relies on the fact that at least 50%+1 of the voting pilots only see 'Pay-rate' and never perform the simple arithmetic to translate that 'Pay-rate' into actual 'Pay'.

That simple arithmetic shows a huge concession without even considering no profit share.

And as for 'Promptly'... it would not surprise me if that gets interpreted to mean that short-call becomes an On-Property reserve. If anyone thinks that is a ridiculous possible interpretation, then you simply do not know who you are dealing with when it comes to Doug Parker and the 'Labor Relations' team at the new AAmerican Airlines.

Spoiler
12-26-2014, 06:37 AM
Take a trip down regional lane if you want to see how arbiters bend language.
I know you will say it will never happen here bit just think back the 7600 floor arbitration for a taste

inline five
12-26-2014, 07:11 AM
Not a single chance short call is going to be considered a ready reserve. Guys put the crack pipe down.

I too agree had they offered min day it would be a solid yes from most including me. But like others are saying we're not gonna get that anyway...so...

Is there no trip rig ? I'm not that familiar with it being on reserve it doesn't matter right now.

texaspilot76
12-26-2014, 07:18 AM
Exactly why the work rules are so critical. Most especially the rigs.

Pay = Pay-rate x Hours.

It never ceases to amaze how stupidly pilots think 'Pay' is the 'Pay-rate'.

The proposed duty rig means that the 4-day trip you fly now, which pays 19 hrs x Pay-rate, will pay 10:20hrs x Pay-rate.

This management relies on the fact that at least 50%+1 of the voting pilots only see 'Pay-rate' and never perform the simple arithmetic to translate that 'Pay-rate' into actual 'Pay'.

That simple arithmetic shows a huge concession without even considering no profit share.

And as for 'Promptly'... it would not surprise me if that gets interpreted to mean that short-call becomes an On-Property reserve. If anyone thinks that is a ridiculous possible interpretation, then you simply do not know who you are dealing with when it comes to Doug Parker and the 'Labor Relations' team at the new AAmerican Airlines.

There is nothing in the company offer that takes away our rig. I have had numerous 4 day trips with a 36 hour layover that we get a minimum of 20 hours pay. That will not change. The only trips that are not subject to the rig are the all night nighters and the red eyes.

CanoePilot
12-26-2014, 07:26 AM
Those knuckleheads screwed up any shot of min day with their offer. If they had worked off the company proposal we would have a better offer but that ship has sailed. Min day is gone and the best we have is on front of us. The worst thing would be to say no to the pay and still have that sorry mou. This is why you don't let hardliners like phl reps run a union.

Hueypilot
12-26-2014, 07:35 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it now...most of the requests Parker has made simply mirror what he was working with under LUS, and it mirrors DL and UA. LUS has more defined short call language than LAA currently has. We have combined divisions, unlike LAA. We don't use LAA's HBT carve outs. We don't do monthly bids (it's as needed).

None of those doom-and-gloom scenarios mentioned are the reality at LUS, so I seriously doubt it'll happen if applied to the LAA side as well. Airport standby as a result of using "promptly" in short-call language? That's nonsense.

Again, if you want to oppose the current deal, that's fine, but do so using facts and reality, not made up hyperbole and dooms-day "what if" scenarios. Seriously, we're not going to be getting check rides during midnight currency sims. We're not going to get furloughed or stagnated for decades from merging I/D fences. We're not going to be flying 8h 58m flights to Europe with two pilots. We're not losing our duty/trip rigs that we currently have...if anything, they'll get very slightly better.

And as for LUS living under LOA93...that was USAPA's doing. You know, the same guys telling you those horror stories listed above and leading the "just say no" campaign?

Again I have no problem if someone says "I don't like the deal because it doesn't have min day". Cool, and that's a legit reason. I don't personally think we'll be able to negotiate for it at this point, but hey, at least you have a real reason to vote it down. But all this other rhetoric? Come on...

Jetdriver7
12-26-2014, 07:35 AM
Those knuckleheads screwed up any shot of min day with their offer. If they had worked off the company proposal we would have a better offer but that ship has sailed. Min day is gone and the best we have is on front of us. The worst thing would be to say no to the pay and still have that sorry mou. This is why you don't let hardliners like phl reps run a union.

For someone who so wanted the merger to go through you seem to not want to fight very hard for better rules. Hourly rate means nothing with poor rules. Reread the posts above. Listen to what these senior guys have to say about what'll happen in the future. Conceding min day now means it'll be gone. Best case we would have to give up loads to ever negotiate it back. If these issues are conceded we will not improve come section 6. The stand needs to be made now so we enter section 6 sooner rather than later for improvements. This agreement will only post pone section 6 as well.

PurpleTurtle
12-26-2014, 07:52 AM
Calendar day with current offer. Done.


If the Company would add 5:15 per calendar day min (not average) then the deal would be acceptable.

Simple.

If they would pay us 7:15 per calendar day min then we could agree to just use FAR 117. :D

Just trust them
12-26-2014, 07:55 AM
Not a single chance short call is going to be considered a ready reserve. Guys put the crack pipe down.

I too agree had they offered min day it would be a solid yes from most including me. But like others are saying we're not gonna get that anyway...so...

Is there no trip rig ? I'm not that familiar with it being on reserve it doesn't matter right now.

As I said, if you think it's not possible that such an interpretation of 'Promptly' would be used by the Company to make a short-call an OPR, then you underestimate what Labor Relations does to contractual provisions which are either not present or poorly defined. Give them a slight crack in the contract and they will drive a freight train through it.

LUS and LAW had bucket-loads of outstanding grievances. Doug's team rarely complies with the stuff that is not absolutely explicit in the Contract. They will go to town on the stuff that is not explicitly defined.

As far as I can see with the Company proposal, the duty day is it for the rigs.

PurpleTurtle
12-26-2014, 07:56 AM
There is nothing in the company offer that takes away our rig. I have had numerous 4 day trips with a 36 hour layover that we get a minimum of 20 hours pay. That will not change. The only trips that are not subject to the rig are the all night nighters and the red eyes.

Well then you aren't junior enough to have flown the non-redeye, non-allnighters that pay far less than 5 hours per day.

Regardless, if you are trying to say that all trips should pay 5:00 averages because of Rigs, then the company should have no problem with a calendar day RIG. :)

Calendar day RIG is industry standard. Why can't the company accept it? Why should we sell out for less?

Hueypilot
12-26-2014, 07:57 AM
hueypilot.

I do appreciate your service and the sacrifices you and others have made, my hat is off to you.

However Doug is not uncle Sam, and we are not defending freedom, we are here to make a buc. Doug is here to make millions, he and his cut throat bean counters WILL take every penny they can from all. Why you ask, because its their job! They don't care about you any further than if you are well enough to move a plane. They count on you and your integrity to make sacrifices to make sure their bonuses keep on rolling in. You are a fool to apply your integrity and honor to management, they don't have any!
You posted the CPO has better things to do than watch your check in time. In case you forgot, or were not here, about 5 years or so ago they did just that. They used Map quest or similar to plot pilots locations to verify they were withing the 90. So yes they can, will and have done exactly what you say they wont.
If the language they want is "essentially the same" as current then why change it? That question alone should raise your eyebrows.
A contract is so much more than an hourly wage, sure we will make an extra nickel, but I guarantee we will pay for that raise with other parts of the contract. That is how management especially this group does business. If we get an extra 5K per year, that will be paid for with 5k in concessions in other parts.
As far as I am concerned, I am tired of playing directly into the hand of management. They use the exact same play book every single time and yet so many never see it:confused:

Just so you know, I posted that so maybe it'll give people some perspective. It's easy to live in the airline bubble for long enough that some things seem like really bad deals when in reality it's the same or even better than what others live with.

Before I went into the military full time, I worked as a geologist. I was on call 24/7 most of the time and was only guaranteed one weekend off a month. I worked 60-70 hours a week and was salaried (i.e., no overtime/premium pay). We had hard office hours and yes, if you were even a minute late you got written up.

I want us to have good work rules just like anyone else. But I see a lot of heated rhetoric and unrealistic views on just how bad everything is. Is it as good as Delta? No, and getting to a point where we have min calendar day and other better work rules should be an ongoing goal. But at the end of the day, THIS particular situation has certain limitations to it that undermine our bargaining position. Is the deal the company offering the best deal? No, it's not. It's not what we would like. But $1.7 billion in economic improvements worth $120 million in organizational/structural changes that essentially morphs us into an airline that operates a lot like our competition? I think that's the question we need to be looking at. Not dreaming up every possible horrible scenario that could ever happen.

Just trust them
12-26-2014, 07:58 AM
There is nothing in the company offer that takes away our rig. I have had numerous 4 day trips with a 36 hour layover that we get a minimum of 20 hours pay. That will not change. The only trips that are not subject to the rig are the all night nighters and the red eyes.

And with this proposal, that 4 day will pay 15:30.

That's 4.5 hours less than you get now. All current trips are subject to current rigs. You only notice it with the all-nighters and red-eyes because that's where you see how an insufficient rig can produce a poorly payed trip.

Caveat emptor. Look past the pay-rate.

PurpleTurtle
12-26-2014, 08:00 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it now...most of the requests Parker has made simply mirror what he was working with under LUS, and it mirrors DL and UA. LUS has more defined short call language than LAA currently has. We have combined divisions, unlike LAA. We don't use LAA's HBT carve outs. We don't do monthly bids (it's as needed).

None of those doom-and-gloom scenarios mentioned are the reality at LUS, so I seriously doubt it'll happen if applied to the LAA side as well. Airport standby as a result of using "promptly" in short-call language? That's nonsense.

Again, if you want to oppose the current deal, that's fine, but do so using facts and reality, not made up hyperbole and dooms-day "what if" scenarios. Seriously, we're not going to be getting check rides during midnight currency sims. We're not going to get furloughed or stagnated for decades from merging I/D fences. We're not going to be flying 8h 58m flights to Europe with two pilots. We're not losing our duty/trip rigs that we currently have...if anything, they'll get very slightly better.

And as for LUS living under LOA93...that was USAPA's doing. You know, the same guys telling you those horror stories listed above and leading the "just say no" campaign?

Again I have no problem if someone says "I don't like the deal because it doesn't have min day". Cool, and that's a legit reason. I don't personally think we'll be able to negotiate for it at this point, but hey, at least you have a real reason to vote it down. But all this other rhetoric? Come on...


Enough with making excuses for the company. They can afford to pay industry standard compensation. Parker needs to man up and pay what he said he would pay.

He won't need to pay industry standard compensation if we agree to accept less.

I support the BOD.

ghilis101
12-26-2014, 08:36 AM
Fully agree with PurpleTurtle.

HueyPilot I appreciate your perspective. One of the first things they teach you in business school is how to extract to most work from your employees for the least amount of pay. Its not personal to them, its just business. Knowing that, you should FULLY expect that the first few proposals theyre going to offer you are downright shockingly bad. Theyre trying to find that magic line to get exactly 51 percent of you to agree to. Unfortunately, people may not know how this game is played, and they look at certain carrots that are being dangled but they don't evaluate the whole package. min day is a big, big, big deal. HUGE deal.

One more thing to keep in mind, the days of the company "woe is us" sob story are over. Pilot labor accounts for maybe 5 percent of operating costs, so what the APA asked for is nowhere near as high as they made it out to be in their response. We all know the biggest piece is fuel, and that's under control for the foreseeable future. The airline is making RECORD profits. You deserve to be making more money, not out of greed or anything else, its because you deserve it. Funny how theyre not considered greedy for demanding MORE concessions out of you, but we're considered greedy for asking for just a few basic contractual protections. Please, I urge you to understand how this game is played. Its a slow process but you must protect your profession. The whole industry needs AA pilots to stand their ground.

Hueypilot
12-26-2014, 08:44 AM
Ghillis, I certainly do not feel any sympathy for the company or the execs. I know they are making a ton of money hand-over-fist. I know that, like anywhere, they'll make full use of the rules. Hell, you're ex-military, right? You saw how ridiculous they'd get about treating people over there as well.

I'm just looking at this from a practical standpoint. Big picture. If I felt we had a good shot and plenty of leverage to get min calendar day and the other big items we want, I'd be right there with Purpleturtle. But I guess that's just a difference of opinion.

Trying to paint my point of view as being sympathetic to management is not accurate. I want the most we can get out of this deal, and IMHO I think we're pretty close to that point.

Diesel1030
12-26-2014, 08:54 AM
Doug can have the seven changes he wants to the contract whenever he gives us just one or two changes that we are asking for.

So far he is just demanding. His profits are better than Delta. He needs to at least pay some Delta standard contract items. Anything else is unacceptable.

Bump... I hope there are more of us out there. Tired of hearing from the "I want my money now" crowd on c&r, here and other places. Send your soundoffs.

Our counters are more than reasonable especially considering the lack of PS. Don't sell yourselves short fellas... We are worth more than this. Don't fear the threat of arbitration that the company clearly does not want to enter with the pilot group.

Al Czervik
12-26-2014, 09:17 AM
Calendar day with current offer. Done.

This^^^^^^

NewPil0t
12-26-2014, 09:44 AM
Just so you know, I posted that so maybe it'll give people some perspective. It's easy to live in the airline bubble for long enough that some things seem like really bad deals when in reality it's the same or even better than what others live with.

Before I went into the military full time, I worked as a geologist. I was on call 24/7 most of the time and was only guaranteed one weekend off a month. I worked 60-70 hours a week and was salaried (i.e., no overtime/premium pay). We had hard office hours and yes, if you were even a minute late you got written up.

I want us to have good work rules just like anyone else. But I see a lot of heated rhetoric and unrealistic views on just how bad everything is. Is it as good as Delta? No, and getting to a point where we have min calendar day and other better work rules should be an ongoing goal. But at the end of the day, THIS particular situation has certain limitations to it that undermine our bargaining position. Is the deal the company offering the best deal? No, it's not. It's not what we would like. But $1.7 billion in economic improvements worth $120 million in organizational/structural changes that essentially morphs us into an airline that operates a lot like our competition? I think that's the question we need to be looking at. Not dreaming up every possible horrible scenario that could ever happen.

Please don't try to insert real world common-sense to the airline concession hardship argument.

;)

redthread
12-26-2014, 10:11 AM
Wouldn't it be nice if all if a sudden, pilot applicants all pulled their apps from American with a short comment, "looking elsewhere until pay AND rules improve". THAT would get their attention!

inline five
12-26-2014, 10:18 AM
Wouldn't it be nice if all if a sudden, pilot applicants all pulled their apps from American with a short comment, "looking elsewhere until pay AND rules improve". THAT would get their attention!

Yep let's ask guys who are working 6-8 legs a day at regionals making 80k as a CA to not apply to a $300k job top out pay with a stable company with domiciles across the nation because it's 'just' DAL +7% with no profit sharing.

It's unfortunate but guys like you exist and a lot are leading the unions direction. I flew with one of the PHL guys who is working on negotiations, his exact words "I'm outta here in 5 years I don't give a ******* what happens to this place".

As I'm sitting there thinking, hey *******, I have 33 years left.

fr8tmastr
12-26-2014, 11:33 AM
Not dreaming up every possible horrible scenario that could ever happen.

And that is why we have 400+ grievances outstanding, and why the language we do get is so ambiguous that we usually lose the grievances that actually get heard.

I guarantee the team of lawyers the management has employed to write this language have thought this through. Again 400+ outstanding grievances!
Management is playing chess, while the pilot group only in a half baked game of checkers, all the while easily distracted by a shiny object.

Do you use this same philosophy when you buy a house or car? Something tells me you carefully review everything, and not trust Honest Bobs fine Automobiles with your future.

pony172
12-26-2014, 11:40 AM
You guys only have +400 outstanding grievances! At UPS we would consider that labor peace. The devil is in the contract language.

ghilis101
12-26-2014, 12:02 PM
Bump... I hope there are more of us out there. Tired of hearing from the "I want my money now" crowd on c&r, here and other places. Send your soundoffs.

Our counters are more than reasonable especially considering the lack of PS. Don't sell yourselves short fellas... We are worth more than this. Don't fear the threat of arbitration that the company clearly does not want to enter with the pilot group.


exactly. The FAs have helped you out IMMENSELY by standing their ground and in return the company has shown their hand. You already know the company does not want arbitration, they keep coming back to the table. They are following the playbook. So should you.

drinksonme
12-26-2014, 04:11 PM
exactly. The FAs have helped you out IMMENSELY by standing their ground and in return the company has shown their hand. You already know the company does not want arbitration, they keep coming back to the table. They are following the playbook. So should you.

Yeah....ah....wait what?

"The FA did stand their ground"....True by 16
-Most voted no cause they had no clue what they were voting on. I guess you missed those stories and conversations.

"Know the company does not want arbitration"..false
-The only people that know their plans are the people with the plan

You are correct though, they did help us...by getting their asses handed to them by the arbitrators. You know the arbitrators the company "does not" want to use. Keep spreading that thought. The company will get HBT, DOM/INTL mergerd, "promptly report", and late night sims. They ARE INDUSTRY STANDARDS. I don't care what the opinion of a few pitchfork and torch reps is, they will get it in arbitration. We will then see the ineptitude, once again of the "burn it down cause I hate Parker" crowd. In return we might get min day an INDUSTRY STANDARD, but I would not hold my breath.

The FA's, BTW, did not get highest pay because the arbitrators gave it to them, or because they stood their ground; they got it because the company gave it to them. Now they are in love with Parker and Kirby. Just ask them. Don't get me wrong I dislike the play by Parker and team, but it is business. We are making personal and will lose our collective asses, because we are acting on emotion not reason and sound judgment.

sailingfun
12-26-2014, 04:18 PM
Just curious, what are the duty and trip rigs in the companies current table position?

pilotlbs
12-26-2014, 06:04 PM
Bump... I hope there are more of us out there. Tired of hearing from the "I want my money now" crowd on c&r, here and other places. Send your soundoffs.

Our counters are more than reasonable especially considering the lack of PS. Don't sell yourselves short fellas... We are worth more than this. Don't fear the threat of arbitration that the company clearly does not want to enter with the pilot group.

Please explain how you get what you are worth through arbitration? I'm serious. I don't understand the thought process here. If you go to arbitration you lose the pay, (the pay raise in a year doesn't count, it's not Delta +7. It's Delta/United average without profit sharing, and you hope Delta gets a pay raise.) you still don't get profit sharing, and your work rules don't improve at all (not that they are improving without arbitration)? Did the company not go to arbitration with the FA's? How can you seriously look anyone in the eye and say they're not going to do the same thing now? I'm not being a smart A about it, I'm asking sincerely. Are you saying the research of the reported value of the offer of 1.8 Billion with Company Productivity asks of $120 million from the union is incorrect? I agree completely that we need min calendar day and some other things. I agree that the unions proposal was not necessarily unreasonable. But I don't understand this "burn it down" philosophy. I have no problem going to arbitration if it really makes logical sense but the whole stick it to the man philosophy is more like shoot myself in the foot. Please explain with some credibility to back up your argument how arbitration is to our benefit.

PurpleTurtle
12-26-2014, 06:32 PM
Please explain how you get what you are worth through arbitration? ...

You tell me how Parker gets his seven concessions in arbitration.... He can't beg, borrow, or steal them in arbitration. He must buy them.. that is why he didn't go to arbitration a month ago. His crew news lies are all part of their negotiating strategy. Hurry, hurry, deadline, today only, don't miss out, perishable, never again, boo I'll scare you, jump at it, its now or never... Hog wash. Its Jerry Glass/Parker/Kirby Bull ****e tactics.

They need seven industry standard concessions... he needs to buy them.. we need to sell them.. We get exactly what we require when we sell the concessions... nothing more...nothing less... WE NAME THE PRICE.. NOT HIM.. WE OWN THEM... WE are SELLING....

If you really want to know why Parker is in a rush, you should read the FCC papers and see what kind of bonus Parker gets (and the real deadline he is up against)...

pilotlbs
12-26-2014, 06:43 PM
You tell me how Parker gets his seven concessions in arbitration.... He can't beg, borrow, or steal them in arbitration. He must buy them.. that is why he didn't go to arbitration a month ago. His crew news lies are all part of their negotiating strategy. Hurry, hurry, deadline, today only, don't miss out, perishable, never again, boo I'll scare you, jump at it, its now or never... Hog wash. Its Jerry Glass/Parker/Kirby Bull ****e tactics.

They need seven industry standard concessions... he needs to buy them.. we need to sell them.. We get exactly what we require when we sell the concessions... nothing more...nothing less... WE NAME THE PRICE.. NOT HIM.. WE OWN THEM... WE are SELLING....

If you really want to know why Parker is in a rush, you should read the FCC papers and see what kind of bonus Parker gets (and the real deadline he is up against)...

I gotcha, thanks for the reply. But do you think those 7 concessions that we can sell can get us DL Rates, plus profit sharing, plus min calendar day, plus 321 group 3, etc.? It just doesn't seem that arbitration will be in our favor, not to mention that Airways already uses FAR 117 vs. HBT and there are no Intl/Dom divisions.

drinksonme
12-26-2014, 06:58 PM
You tell me how Parker gets his seven concessions in arbitration.... He can't beg, borrow, or steal them in arbitration. He must buy them.. that is why he didn't go to arbitration a month ago. His crew news lies are all part of their negotiating strategy. Hurry, hurry, deadline, today only, don't miss out, perishable, never again, boo I'll scare you, jump at it, its now or never... Hog wash. Its Jerry Glass/Parker/Kirby Bull ****e tactics.

They need seven industry standard concessions... he needs to buy them.. we need to sell them.. We get exactly what we require when we sell the concessions... nothing more...nothing less... WE NAME THE PRICE.. NOT HIM.. WE OWN THEM... WE are SELLING....

If you really want to know why Parker is in a rush, you should read the FCC papers and see what kind of bonus Parker gets (and the real deadline he is up against)...

FCC....he gets to have a morning show on AM?!?!?

You mean SEC and they mean nothing. There is no rush for him to push this. This is a fire that the hot-heads are trying start by burning rocks. I fell for it too, until I used my brain read for myself. All Parker and company have to do is complete SOC by next year and have his large work groups match other airlines in pay rate. Then shares for them are vested. However there nothing that stipulates that AAL EXECs must meet some fantasy island for leverage point in January but just by the end of 2015....wow pull the lever and watch the slots spin....no cherries.

inline five
12-26-2014, 07:14 PM
Is anyone else perturbed the BOD is meeting Jan 2-3? I would've like to see them meet Dec 27-28, get some feed back and be in a position to pass the contract by Jan 3 as it maximizes our benefit if that is indeed what they decide to do.

PurpleTurtle
12-26-2014, 07:39 PM
FCC....he gets to have a morning show on AM?!?!?

You mean SEC and they mean nothing. There is no rush for him to push this. This is a fire that the hot-heads are trying start by burning rocks. I fell for it too, until I used my brain read for myself. All Parker and company have to do is complete SOC by next year and have his large work groups match other airlines in pay rate. Then shares for them are vested. However there nothing that stipulates that AAL EXECs must meet some fantasy island for leverage point in January but just by the end of 2015....wow pull the lever and watch the slots spin....no cherries.

No cherries for Parker until he gets past the BOD.

Parker is making $7B next year. Did you find the BOD proposal reasonable or not?

PurpleTurtle
12-26-2014, 07:46 PM
I gotcha, thanks for the reply. But do you think those 7 concessions that we can sell can get us DL Rates, plus profit sharing, plus min calendar day, plus 321 group 3, etc.? It just doesn't seem that arbitration will be in our favor, not to mention that Airways already uses FAR 117 vs. HBT and there are no Intl/Dom divisions.

Parker will never let an arbitrator determine his costs. Never. But he won't have to anyway. The pilots will agree to give him his 7 concessions long before arbitration goes its full course.

As far as what USAirways already uses regarding FAR117 INT/DOM... it is immaterial. The Green Book is what matters as the "arbitration backstop"... but like I said, Parker will never rely on an arbitrator to set his costs.

He needs the pilots to sell the 7 concessions and we will. I don't know how much stamina the BOD has, but there was nothing unreasonable in the BOD counter, IMHO.

PurpleTurtle
12-26-2014, 07:50 PM
FCC....he gets to have a morning show on AM?!?!?

You mean SEC and they mean nothing. There is no rush for him to push this. This is a fire that the hot-heads are trying start by burning rocks. I fell for it too, until I used my brain read for myself. All Parker and company have to do is complete SOC by next year and have his large work groups match other airlines in pay rate. Then shares for them are vested. However there nothing that stipulates that AAL EXECs must meet some fantasy island for leverage point in January but just by the end of 2015....wow pull the lever and watch the slots spin....no cherries.


I'd like the BOD to meet in Hawaii on Jan 3rd-15th, and send Kirby a pre-canned email on the 3rd telling them they are working on it and will regrettably be unavailable until they finish their trip at the beach (like he did right before Christmas), but of course in the mean time the previous proposal is still available should Parkirby choose to make the purchase.

Diesel1030
12-26-2014, 08:04 PM
Been flying all night to Deep South on a 3 day that pays 10.34. Thankfully Purple Turtle conveyed my thoughts on why we need to continue to negotiate.. It's not emotion it's business on our side as well.

Hotel Pen
12-26-2014, 09:25 PM
No problem... I'm patient I'd rather go through arb with the greenbook sacrificing no work rules and take my pay in 2016. Will it be less than what is currently offered? Yes, but I think we are underestimating the qol and costs associated with them. I think we all need to let the BOD/NC do their DD and pass their opinion of the offer. Currently the membership is too emotionally invested ($$$$) to see the true pros/cons/ valuations.

This is a big vote.. We should all be asking ourselves why the company is giving us no time to road show it etc like the F/A. It's a tactic right out of Glass's play book.
We won't get our pay in 2016 though.

This is where the arbitration logic ceases to be logical.

-H P

PurpleTurtle
12-26-2014, 09:40 PM
We won't get our pay in 2016 though.

This is where the arbitration logic ceases to be logical.

-H P

"Arbitration" is a crew news red herring to manipulate negotiations.. as is "this is not section 6 negotiations"... So? The company is negotiating for section 6 items. Why are we going to accept the ploy that the company can demand section 6 contract items but we can't? Why are we going to accept that the company can make deadlines but we can't? Parker needs his 7 concessions and can only get them via negotiations. They are industry standard. We need at least some of our industry standard contract improvements. He has $7B in profits coming next year. He can afford it.

We need to support the BOD, and Parker needs to man up.

Al Czervik
12-27-2014, 02:29 AM
Been flying all night to Deep South on a 3 day that pays 10.34. Thankfully Purple Turtle conveyed my thoughts on why we need to continue to negotiate.. It's not emotion it's business on our side as well.

I agree we need min calendar. Deep south at 5:15 each way?

CanoePilot
12-27-2014, 04:57 AM
Been flying all night to Deep South on a 3 day that pays 10.34. Thankfully Purple Turtle conveyed my thoughts on why we need to continue to negotiate.. It's not emotion it's business on our side as well.

I want a min day also but we can't get it in arbitration.

sailingfun
12-27-2014, 05:28 AM
I want a min day also but we can't get it in arbitration.

What are the duty and trip rigs in the companies offer?

ackattacker
12-27-2014, 06:07 AM
What are the duty and trip rigs in the companies offer?

Min duty period 5:10 (average per trip) (improvement from 5:00). All other rigs untouched from current MTA.

APA wants this changed to 5:15 per DAY not duty period. This change would have a large positive effect mostly on red-eyes and similar trips that touch 3 days but only consist of 2 duty periods. Keep in mind the 1:3.5 trip rig does provide some backstop to grossly extending trips, since you get paid 6.86 hours for every 24 hours time away from base.

This and not moving the A321 to Group III are the two biggest "gripes" about the company proposal I'm hearing on the line.

Diesel1030
12-27-2014, 06:10 AM
I agree we need min calendar. Deep south at 5:15 each way?

Ok you got me..It's not deep but in the middle of nowhere Brazil with a 30hr sit :eek::p

Just trust them
12-27-2014, 06:11 AM
I want a min day also but we can't get it in arbitration.

Just as the Company can't get what it wants in 'Arbitration'.

Give up the battered wife mindset.

This company is not in bankruptcy and is, in fact, making absolutely enormous profits. Enormous.

Almost $12,500,000 per day. That's over $500,000 profit per hour. Each hour of every day. And that's for the past year.

Next year profits are estimated to be almost $18,000,000 per day. That's about $750,000 per hour. Each hour of every day. Profit. Pure, money in the pocket profit.

This is not a time to be giving up things you already have in exchange for something you will be getting in the short-term anyway.

Diesel1030
12-27-2014, 06:17 AM
I want a min day also but we can't get it in arbitration.

I agree.. Who says we need to go to arb? Let's continue to talk with them. The bod has the ability to probably squeeze one more concession from them to really make this deal pass. It requires the membership to be patient and support the BOD/NC. It's worth the shot. My whole issue is the rushed timeline. I doubt we will even have the time to get valuations out to the membership in a timely fashion. Best thing the Bod could do is meet on the 3rd and tell co that they will get back to them later in the month.

With this fast timeline they company is getting the membership to feel rushed and lose sight of the big picture for fear of losing the money. Hence the flurry of "take the deal " now posts coming out of the woodworks. We are getting close to the end and need to just let our reps do their job.


Again I'm on a 3 day with a 30hr sit that pays 10.45... We have many of these at LAA

Al Czervik
12-27-2014, 07:21 AM
Ok you got me..It's not deep but in the middle of nowhere Brazil with a 30hr sit :eek::p

I'm with you. LUS has a ton of west coast 3 day red eye trips worth 10 and change.

ghilis101
12-27-2014, 07:37 AM
Exactly Diesel! The company doesn't want arbitration. There are 15,000 pilots that they know they are walking a fine line with. You need to make them walk every bit of that line. They've made too much money of your hard work, you can't succumb to the mind games yet. This is not a take it or leave it situation. I say again, this is not a take it or leave it situation. This is negotiations by another name. You will get a couple more QOL improvements if you stand up for them.

Just trust them
12-27-2014, 09:01 AM
$750,000 profit per hour.

That will probably increase when the A321neo starts transatlantic operations. Because Group II pays less than Group III.

In 2015, in the 30 hours a pilot will stay by the highway in a bed-bug infested motel, say the Palos Verdes, earning nothing but per-diem, the largest airline in the world will generate $22,500,000 in profit. Not revenues, profit.

$22,500,000 in pure profit and a pilot gets per-diem only for 30hrs of a lifetime wasted. The per diem is tax-free, so there is that.

EMBFlyer
12-27-2014, 09:16 AM
$750,000 profit per hour.

That will probably increase when the A321neo starts transatlantic operations. Because Group II pays less than Group III.

In 2015, in the 30 hours a pilot will stay by the highway in a bed-bug infested motel, say the Palos Verdes, earning nothing but per-diem, the largest airline in the world will generate $22,500,000 in profit. Not revenues, profit.

$22,500,000 in pure profit and a pilot gets per-diem only for 30hrs of a lifetime wasted. The per diem is tax-free, so there is that.

Yeah...but the location!!:D

ghilis101
12-27-2014, 09:29 AM
Hahaha. But hey look at those dumb FAs that gave up nothing (most importantly kept their dignity) and got a pay raise. Maybe we should do the exact opposite. Give up some big things for higher pay rates that actually lead to a smaller w-2. Got it :)

Pacman
12-27-2014, 09:42 AM
Hahaha. But hey look at those dumb FAs that gave up nothing (most importantly kept their dignity) and got a pay raise.

The FAs voted no on the same contract that they are now working under. Everything that APFA and company already agreed to by september was set in stone. They were only voting on a pay. They lost higher pay, some of which was given back, and the ability to drop down to zero hours in a month. They gave away the same concessions. They did not keep their dignity.

ghilis101
12-27-2014, 09:46 AM
but if AA pilots' current contract is better than whats being offered, and the pay raises are coming, you can achieve the same results the FAs did but be better off for it. I guess that's the point Im trying to make.

Wiskey Driver
12-27-2014, 12:10 PM
Work rules, once given up its next to impossible to get them back. Think long and hard about selling things you really don't want to part with.

WD at AWA

inline five
12-27-2014, 12:39 PM
but if AA pilots' current contract is better than whats being offered, and the pay raises are coming, you can achieve the same results the FAs did but be better off for it. I guess that's the point Im trying to make.

Sorta. The pay won't be as much and we lose all the TAs that have been approved.

Assuming the loss of 200 wide body FO positions, at $180k each, combining Dom/intl yields a $36mil savings.

Are we getting our monies worth? I would say yes, since the TAs alone are worth an annual $20mil.

We're getting +23% instead of +16%.

Average of $160k per pilot over 14,000 guys, is $180mil in additional compensation from 16% to 23%.

Just trust them
12-27-2014, 02:50 PM
Sorta. The pay won't be as much and we lose all the TAs that have been approved.

Assuming the loss of 200 wide body FO positions, at $180k each, combining Dom/intl yields a $36mil savings.

Are we getting our monies worth? I would say yes, since the TAs alone are worth an annual $20mil.

We're getting +23% instead of +16%.

Average of $160k per pilot over 14,000 guys, is $180mil in additional compensation from 16% to 23%.

Are we getting our monies worth?

About $750,000 per hour profit.

$6,500,000,000 per year profit for 2015. Profit, not revenues. Monies over and above what the operation costs to run. Salaries, wages, fuel, everything. Pure profit.

Average of $465,000 profit per pilot. For one year, not the term of the Contract. $465,000.

Are we getting our monies worth? No. Not even close.

Imapilot2
12-27-2014, 03:58 PM
Work rules, once given up its next to impossible to get them back. Think long and hard about selling things you really don't want to part with.

WD at AWA


Spot on. Also, just a little tidbit. I interned with AA years ago and loved the airline. With that said I know you guys are in a pinch with this contract but keep in mind your peers at DAL. We are getting about 19% (Forbes estimate)bonus paycheck this year. It was a little less last year and it is projected to be a little more next year. I have gotten this check for several years. It is not forever but keep this in mind that it is ABOVE our current DAL rates that we are about to raise again( our contract is starting again this 2015). Your company is making even more than DAL........huge.

PurpleTurtle
12-27-2014, 05:11 PM
.................

Pro Fessional
12-27-2014, 07:30 PM
It was a little less last year and it is projected to be a little more next year. I have gotten this check for several years. It is not forever but keep this in mind that it is ABOVE our current DAL rates that we are about to raise again( our contract is starting again this 2015). Your company is making even more than DAL........huge.

Not exactly. Last year profit sharing was 8.25% of pay. The year before it was 6.7%. The year before that it was 4.8%. Our (DAL) contract is amendable 12/31/2015. I will be very surprised if we have new pay rates by 1/1/2016.

sailingfun
12-28-2014, 04:11 AM
Spot on. Also, just a little tidbit. I interned with AA years ago and loved the airline. With that said I know you guys are in a pinch with this contract but keep in mind your peers at DAL. We are getting about 19% (Forbes estimate)bonus paycheck this year. It was a little less last year and it is projected to be a little more next year. I have gotten this check for several years. It is not forever but keep this in mind that it is ABOVE our current DAL rates that we are about to raise again( our contract is starting again this 2015). Your company is making even more than DAL........huge.

Your numbers are high. 2013 profit sharing paid in FEB of 14 was just over 8%. 2014 profit sharing is projected at 15 to 16%. 5% was paid as a bonus in NOV and the balance will be paid in FEB. 2015 profit sharing payable in 2016 is projected at 18 to 20%.

R57 relay
12-28-2014, 07:02 AM
Are we getting our monies worth?

About $750,000 per hour profit.

$6,500,000,000 per year profit for 2015. Profit, not revenues. Monies over and above what the operation costs to run. Salaries, wages, fuel, everything. Pure profit.

Average of $465,000 profit per pilot. For one year, not the term of the Contract. $465,000.

Are we getting our monies worth? No. Not even close.

So if AAL was only projected to make a billion dollars next year, would that make Parker's offer a great deal? What if the company said "We're making boat loads of cash! We'll give you everything you want, with the understanding that will go to arbitration to reduce it if we make less that X% profit margin." Would you take it?

I get your real point. There has never been a better time to stand our ground for what we deserve. I agree, and I will support the BOD. My concern is that we, the line pilots, don't have all the information about valuations, and this little MTA value arbitration thing. I cannot remember a single good arbitration for labor. I'm sure there are some, but I remember a lot of losses for us.

My big questions:

1-Does the company have to operate intl/Dom bases everywhere, or could they do the flying from other bases? ie fly the CLT international from the MIA base and not open a CLT Intl base.
2-Are we SURE that the company wants won't be opened in arbitration, and the arbitrator give them to the company for some small change for us?

pilotlbs
12-28-2014, 09:53 AM
So if AAL was only projected to make a billion dollars next year, would that make Parker's offer a great deal? What if the company said "We're making boat loads of cash! We'll give you everything you want, with the understanding that will go to arbitration to reduce it if we make less that X% profit margin." Would you take it?

I get your real point. There has never been a better time to stand our ground for what we deserve. I agree, and I will support the BOD. My concern is that we, the line pilots, don't have all the information about valuations, and this little MTA value arbitration thing. I cannot remember a single good arbitration for labor. I'm sure there are some, but I remember a lot of losses for us.

My big questions:

1-Does the company have to operate intl/Dom bases everywhere, or could they do the flying from other bases? ie fly the CLT international from the MIA base and not open a CLT Intl base.
2-Are we SURE that the company wants won't be opened in arbitration, and the arbitrator give them to the company for some small change for us?

Good points R57. I think it's important that we keep our greed in check. I don't care how much the company makes. The more the better, I just want to be paid industry standard (W2) including work rules. Unfortunately that's where the company's offer is lacking. The debate lies in where the company really draws the line and what we're willing to accept. I believe negotiations should be a win win for both sides. This proposal may or may not be a win win depending on your opinion but it's important that we check our egos at the cockpit door and keep each other safe.

Just trust them
12-28-2014, 10:44 AM
So if AAL was only projected to make a billion dollars next year, would that make Parker's offer a great deal?

No, regardless of profit or loss, the MTA is better versus the offer. The only thing the offer does is to bring a preplanned pay increase forward by 13 months, assuming the BOD bites by Jan. 3rd. Assuming even the status-quo Delta, the pay-rates will be comparable over the life of the MTA. However, it comes with concessions. If the pilots are not under threat of losing contractual provisions by action of a bankruptcy judgement, there should be no discussion of concessions without adequate returns.

What if the company said "We're making boat loads of cash! We'll give you everything you want, with the understanding that will go to arbitration to reduce it if we make less that X% profit margin." Would you take it?

Yes, but not with an arbitration backstop. Simply because it wouldn't be necessary. A negotiated baseline would rule. A dynamic compensation structure would be ideal in my view, with a reasonable floor. But that would require negotiation. There has been no negotiation. The company said here's our position and that is it. They do not negotiate. Tweaking a position does not constitute negotiating when the parties are so far apart.

I get your real point. There has never been a better time to stand our ground for what we deserve. I agree, and I will support the BOD. My concern is that we, the line pilots, don't have all the information about valuations, and this little MTA value arbitration thing. I cannot remember a single good arbitration for labor. I'm sure there are some, but I remember a lot of losses for us.

I do agree that the information is not only lacking, but is fairly non-existent. Except for pay-rate tables. I don't agree that it's about what we deserve. It's about what we can extract in negotiation. And no real negotiation has occurred since Doug's team lured in a gullible APA almost 3 years ago with promises of a new corporate culture and a management who would respect and reward them for playing ball. As soon as APA agreed to their terms, the negotiating ended.

Now there are provisions of the MTA that they want out of there. From Paragraph 27 of the MOU, the Arbitrator's jurisdiction and award will be limited to fashioning provisions which are consistent with the terms of the MTA. The stipulation for the Arbitration has already been set. Regardless of valuation, they cannot undo provisions of the MTA. The Arbitrator can not create wholly new provisions or delete existing provisions. That is why Doug is floating an early pay raise directly to the pilots. Not because it's the right thing to do, or because he promised Delta pay to the APA, or because historically he just likes to increase worker pay; it is because a large number of pilots will jump at it without noticing that while he is handing you a dollar with his right hand, his left hand is in your wallet taking out a $10 bill.

My big questions:

1-Does the company have to operate intl/Dom bases everywhere, or could they do the flying from other bases? ie fly the CLT international from the MIA base and not open a CLT Intl base.

In accordance with the MTA.

2-Are we SURE that the company wants won't be opened in arbitration, and the arbitrator give them to the company for some small change for us?

Yes. It is not an opportunity for the Company to start a mediated negotiation.

The arbitratorís jurisdiction and award will be limited to fashioning provisions which are consistent with the terms of the MTA, including provisions which implement the terms of the MTA or facilitate the integration of pilots under the terms of the MTA. The arbitratorís award specifically shall adhere to the economic terms of the MTA and shall not change the MTAís Scope terms (Paragraph 25 of this Memorandum)or the modifications generated through the process set forth in Paragraph 24 of this Memorandum.

R57 relay
12-28-2014, 12:16 PM
Yes. It is not an opportunity for the Company to start a mediated negotiation.

The arbitratorís jurisdiction and award will be limited to fashioning provisions which are consistent with the terms of the MTA, including provisions which implement the terms of the MTA or facilitate the integration of pilots under the terms of the MTA. The arbitratorís award specifically shall adhere to the economic terms of the MTA and shall not change the MTAís Scope terms (Paragraph 25 of this Memorandum)or the modifications generated through the process set forth in Paragraph 24 of this Memorandum.



I've read that over and over again, and it looks like a ton of language that the company has driven right around before.

What about the intl/dom question I asked? Ever consider that?

Anyway, I hope you are right. It's up to the board anyway.

Wiskey Driver
12-28-2014, 02:28 PM
I've read that over and over again, and it looks like a ton of language that the company has driven right around before.

What about the intl/dom question I asked? Ever consider that?

Anyway, I hope you are right. It's up to the board anyway.

Econ only. This is not section 6 negotiation which would be required to open up sections of the current contract. This is why it is so damned important to NOT give up items in work rules. Now make no mistake, the dollar amount that the company is offering is pretty good but when weighed against the work rule changes the company wants its awful.

The arbitration route is not a win for pilots but its also not a win for management by any means and in fact its worse for management in the long run. The reason I say that is this, section 6 negotiations open in 18 and the memory of the company trying to really stick it up the rear of the pilots will play long and hard against them during that time. It is sure to be an interesting first couple of weeks of 2015 that much is a given.

WD at AWA

R57 relay
12-28-2014, 04:11 PM
Econ only. This is not section 6 negotiation which would be required to open up sections of the current contract. This is why it is so damned important to NOT give up items in work rules. Now make no mistake, the dollar amount that the company is offering is pretty good but when weighed against the work rule changes the company wants its awful.

The arbitration route is not a win for pilots but its also not a win for management by any means and in fact its worse for management in the long run. The reason I say that is this, section 6 negotiations open in 18 and the memory of the company trying to really stick it up the rear of the pilots will play long and hard against them during that time. It is sure to be an interesting first couple of weeks of 2015 that much is a given.

WD at AWA

First time ever...I hope you're right!

Just trust them
12-28-2014, 05:11 PM
I've read that over and over again, and it looks like a ton of language that the company has driven right around before.

What about the intl/dom question I asked? Ever consider that?

Anyway, I hope you are right. It's up to the board anyway.

Based on Supplement I, it would appear they could do the CLT Intl. without a CLT Intl. base. Whether that's operationally wise is another matter.

It is indeed up to the BOD. These are complex matters. Once it gets beyond them, I doubt these complex matters will get equally complex consideration. The hourly pay rate is all many will give consideration to.

bigscrillywilli
12-28-2014, 05:27 PM
Based on Supplement I, it would appear they could do the CLT Intl. without a CLT Intl. base. Whether that's operationally wise is another matter.

It is indeed up to the BOD. These are complex matters. Once it gets beyond them, I doubt these complex matters will get equally complex consideration. The hourly pay rate is all many will give consideration to.

Yep, unfortunately this turd will pass by a wide margin if it goes to a vote. "Want some candy kid??" :(

teddyballgame
12-29-2014, 07:07 AM
Based on Supplement I, it would appear they could do the CLT Intl. without a CLT Intl. base. Whether that's operationally wise is another matter.


There are several other implications to the international flying if these concessions are handed over on a silver platter to management, as every other one has been throughout the years.

Relief on FAR 117 will result in not only more two-pilot trans-Atlantic trips, but possibly more two-pilot trans-Atlantic legs.

I understand that some carriers use "floating" IRO's; that is, an IRO is only assigned to legs that are actually scheduled for over eight hours. (For example, an eastbound leg from the US to the EU might only be scheduled for 7:40, while the westbound is scheduled for 8:20. Only that westbound leg would have an IRO assigned to it.)

Furthermore, I have also heard that some carriers actually DH IRO's on legs that don't require one as an active crewmember. How would you like to sit in the middle coach seat of a 757 for seven hours -- at half pay?

With regard to bases losing flying, although Parker has mentioned that he wouldn't put one airline's crewmembers in the other airline's hubs/bases (as CO did in ORD and SFO, before their SLI was completed), nothing would prevent trips from being operated, say, MIA-LHR-CLT-CDG-MIA; or PHL-FCO-JFK-MAD-PHL.

And for those who are thinking "It doesn't affect me" because you don't fly international, well how many times has that attitude come back to bite pilots who voted "Yes" on contracts with crappy reserve systems or below-regional-standard pay for smaller mainline aircraft, only to find out later that it did affect them?

Fewer international pilots, as a result of diminished staffing requirements and/or a less desirable QOL on international service, means more domestic pilots getting bumped from left seat to right seat, from blockholder to reserve, from Group II to Group I, and from Group I to you-know-where.

Alas, I realize that these points have been offered in vain. I agree with the above posters in that we all know that in the end, the "Let My Daddy Vote" pants-wetters will prevail.

'Always have. 'Always will.

eaglefly
12-29-2014, 07:13 AM
There are several other implications to the international flying if these concessions are handed over on a silver platter to management, as every other one has been throughout the years.

Relief on FAR 117 will result in not only more two-pilot trans-Atlantic trips, but possibly more two-pilot trans-Atlantic legs.

I understand that some carriers use "floating" IRO's; that is, an IRO is only assigned to legs that are actually scheduled for under eight hours. (For example, an eastbound leg from the US to the EU might only be scheduled for 7:40, while the westbound is scheduled for 8:20. Only that westbound leg would have an IRO assigned to it.)

Furthermore, I have also heard that some carriers actually DH IRO's on legs that don't require one as an active crewmember. How would you like to sit in the middle coach seat of a 757 for seven hours -- at half pay?

With regard to bases losing flying, although Parker has mentioned that he wouldn't put one airline's crewmembers in the other airline's hubs/bases (as CO did in ORD and SFO, before their SLI was completed), nothing would prevent trips from being operated, say, MIA-LHR-CLT-CDG-MIA; or PHL-FCO-JFK-MAD-PHL.

And for those who are thinking "It doesn't affect me" because you don't fly international, well how many times has that attitude come back to bite pilots who voted "Yes" on contracts with crappy reserve systems or below-regional-standard pay for smaller mainline aircraft, only to find out later that it did affect them?

Fewer international pilots, as a result of diminished staffing requirements and/or a less desirable QOL on international service, means more domestic pilots getting bumped from left seat to right seat, from blockholder to reserve, from Group II to Group I, and from Group I to you-know-where.

Alas, I realize that these points have been offered in vain. I agree with the above posters in that we all know that in the end, the "Let My Daddy Vote" pants-wetters will prevail.

'Always have. 'Always will.

It's tough to get through to many now. All they see is the :




:)$$$$$$$$$$$$:)

Nothing blinds a pilot like that.

justjack
12-29-2014, 09:09 AM
Yep, unfortunately this turd will pass by a wide margin if it goes to a vote. "Want some candy kid??" :(

I think you are right. We have to know that no matter how this works out, no matter how we vote, we have all been played. I keep thinking of the "marshmallow test." After several decades the research suggest that it was not so much about instant gratification but rather a response to authority. While it would be easy to jump in and think that this is all about instant gratification, which it certainly is to some extent, we should look at the bigger implications. Pilots have never really thought of themselves as labor. They might vote Democrat as a group, but individually they vote Republican. In their heart of hearts they see themselves as more like management types. They do not have powerful unions. They never see it coming from management. Never. They thought that the MOU was an agreement to get through the merger. Once merged, powerful, and making tons of money, the company would be grateful and pay pilots what they deserved. Pilots are Charlie Brown to management's Lucy. I have no doubt that management's offer was crafted precisely by people who know the psyche of pilots. While it might be easy to say that this group will take the offer because they are tired and have so few years to catch up, this does not entirely explain the offer nor the response to the offer. Someday Pilots are going to have to get real about who they are in the scheme of things and know that nothing will ever be given to them out of fairness or because they deserve it.

Just trust them
12-29-2014, 09:51 AM
$450,000 pure profit for each pilot estimated for one year, 2015.

Yet the 'negotiations' are concessionary. Anyone who's thinking of acquiescing to Doug's demands is a fool.

ghilis101
12-29-2014, 10:08 AM
I think you are right. We have to know that no matter how this works out, no matter how we vote, we have all been played. I keep thinking of the "marshmallow test." After several decades the research suggest that it was not so much about instant gratification but rather a response to authority. While it would be easy to jump in and think that this is all about instant gratification, which it certainly is to some extent, we should look at the bigger implications. Pilots have never really thought of themselves as labor. They might vote Democrat as a group, but individually they vote Republican. In their heart of hearts they see themselves as more like management types. They do not have powerful unions. They never see it coming from management. Never. They thought that the MOU was an agreement to get through the merger. Once merged, powerful, and making tons of money, the company would be grateful and pay pilots what they deserved. Pilots are Charlie Brown to management's Lucy. I have no doubt that management's offer was crafted precisely by people who know the psyche of pilots. While it might be easy to say that this group will take the offer because they are tired and have so few years to catch up, this does not entirely explain the offer nor the response to the offer. Someday Pilots are going to have to get real about who they are in the scheme of things and know that nothing will ever be given to them out of fairness or because they deserve it.

best post Ive read on this discussion well done!

eaglefly
12-29-2014, 10:10 AM
$450,000 pure profit for each pilot estimated for one year, 2015.

Yet the 'negotiations' are concessionary. Anyone who's thinking of acquiescing to Doug's demands is a fool.

$450,000 profit for each pilot for 2015 ?

I must have missed that part in the proposals.

Just trust them
12-29-2014, 10:27 AM
$450,000 profit for each pilot for 2015 ?

I must have missed that part in the proposals.

One of the lower-end Analyst earnings estimate.

About $750,000 per hour profit.

$6,500,000,000 per year profit for 2015. Profit, not revenues.

That's an average of $465,000 profit per pilot.

For one year, not the term of the Contract.

$465,000.

eaglefly
12-29-2014, 10:37 AM
One of the lower-end Analyst earnings estimate.

About $750,000 per hour profit.

$6,500,000,000 per year profit for 2015. Profit, not revenues.

That's an average of $465,000 profit per pilot.

For one year, not the term of the Contract.

$465,000.

But....but....but, Doug said we don't have much of an effect on day-to-day profits and that's why profit-sharing was out of the question.

He wouldn't lie.......would he ? :eek:

CamYZ125
12-29-2014, 11:00 AM
One of the lower-end Analyst earnings estimate.

About $750,000 per hour profit.

$6,500,000,000 per year profit for 2015. Profit, not revenues.

That's an average of $465,000 profit per pilot.

For one year, not the term of the Contract.

$465,000.

I'm pretty sure there are other parts/people at the airline that contribute to the airline's profit, not JUST the pilots. So that number is arbitrary and useless.

Just trust them
12-29-2014, 11:11 AM
But....but....but, Doug said we don't have much of an effect on day-to-day profits and that's why profit-sharing was out of the question.

He wouldn't lie.......would he ? :eek:

What Doug says and thinks is of no importance to me and it shouldn't be for any other pilot. I'm doing my job just the same now in a time of unconscionably huge profits as I did through 2 bankruptcies.

And I'm not thinking of profit sharing, although that's one way of sticking my hand in the pile.

I am thinking that for 2015 the company will make $450,000 pure profit per pilot. But current 'negotiations' are concessionary. That's just silly.

Just trust them
12-29-2014, 11:21 AM
I'm pretty sure there are other parts/people at the airline that contribute to the airline's profit, not JUST the pilots. So that number is arbitrary and useless.

Apparently you misunderstand. The number is neither arbitrary nor useless. It is derived from a lower-end analyst estimate of 2015 earnings.

I'm not saying the pilots are responsible for that profit. The operation as a whole, with the benefit of multiple bankruptcies creates that profit. Not even Doug can take credit for it, even though he will. It is the massive enterprise as a whole that creates the massive profits.

I am saying that lower-end earnings estimates equate to pure profit per pilot in the amount of $450,000.

Meaning that each pilot, if they had the same hand-in-the-till access that management has, could take $200,000 and put it in their pocket, and the company would still make $3.5B in pure profit.

I am saying that's a lot of money for the taking.

eaglefly
12-29-2014, 11:41 AM
What Doug says and thinks is of no importance to me and it shouldn't be for any other pilot. I'm doing my job just the same now in a time of unconscionably huge profits as I did through 2 bankruptcies.

And I'm not thinking of profit sharing, although that's one way of sticking my hand in the pile.

I am thinking that for 2015 the company will make $450,000 pure profit per pilot. But current 'negotiations' are concessionary. That's just silly.

I agree, I was being facetious. :D

texaspilot76
12-29-2014, 11:53 AM
Curious, does anyone know the PHL VP candidate (Wesley, I think) stance on the company proposal? If he supports it, then you PHL pilots need to vote for him.

Saabs
12-29-2014, 12:30 PM
Curious, does anyone know the PHL VP candidate (Wesley, I think) stance on the company proposal? If he supports it, then you PHL pilots need to vote for him.

Or we can educate people on why it's bad to vote in concessionary work rules in this environment. It's not section 6, remember? :rolleyes:

DrivinTheDash
12-29-2014, 01:21 PM
Relief on FAR 117 will result in not only more two-pilot trans-Atlantic trips, but possibly more two-pilot trans-Atlantic legs.

I understand that some carriers use "floating" IRO's; that is, an IRO is only assigned to legs that are actually scheduled for over eight hours. (For example, an eastbound leg from the US to the EU might only be scheduled for 7:40, while the westbound is scheduled for 8:20. Only that westbound leg would have an IRO assigned to it.)

Furthermore, I have also heard that some carriers actually DH IRO's on legs that don't require one as an active crewmember. How would you like to sit in the middle coach seat of a 757 for seven hours -- at half pay?


Could the company do these things? Sure, but none of it would make sense. Yes, they could DH the IRO on legs that don't require his services, but why would they? The green book requires TATL/TPAC DH to be in business class, and with 100% pay and credit. To DH a pilot to Europe so that he could IRO the return, the company would save no money, since it's paying all three pilots 100%, and they would have to assign the J seat that would have been used for rest to the DH pilot. In the current configuration, they would still get one extra J seat to sell in the 757/767, because those planes require 2 J seats for crew rest; however, both are being converted to configurations with single seats that would not require 2 seats to be blocked. If the cost is the same (or very similar), why would the company choose to DH the extra pilot one way, rather than take advantage of the extra FDP/block hour limits of an augmented crew in case of any potential delays?

eaglefly
12-29-2014, 01:51 PM
Curious, does anyone know the PHL VP candidate (Wesley, I think) stance on the company proposal? If he supports it, then you PHL pilots need to vote for him.

I suppose that includes those pilots against the companies proposal ?

Too funny. :rolleyes:

KiloAlpha
12-30-2014, 12:03 PM
Total AAG offer: $1.8 billion above MTA/arbitration limits

Total AAG asks: $114 million

Net to APA: $1.686 billion

Ratio: AAG “gets” vs. APA “gets”: 1 to 17

ghilis101
12-30-2014, 12:39 PM
Or we can educate people on why it's bad to vote in concessionary work rules in this environment. It's not section 6, remember? :rolleyes:

Exactly. You gave and gave and gave over the last 13 years. Your company is the most profitable they've ever been. They're testing you to see if you're going to give anything else. Why would you? This is the most important turning point in most of our careers. Make it count. Show them you're worth much more than they think your worth. They will continue to give you more and more things if you just show them you want it. This isn't 2004 or 2007. This is now 2015, oil is at $58 a barrel, and the company is making Billions.

DarinFred
12-30-2014, 12:41 PM
I heard if the proposal passes, we'll get a nice pay raise, but we'll have to work 24 days a month and have to stay in a Days Inn on every trip for at least 47 hours each time. Is this true? (Been reading C&R too much lately)

ghilis101
12-30-2014, 12:45 PM
Well one of the reasons the FAs voted no on their contact was the motel language. They were going to put them in motels. They probably want to go the same route with you, your quality of hotels has gone down significantly in the past few years.

deepwater
12-30-2014, 12:59 PM
Well one of the reasons the FAs voted no on their contact was the motel language. They were going to put them in motels. They probably want to go the same route with you, your quality of hotels has gone down significantly in the past few years.

A person that would place himself and his family on a wholly-owned regional jet--- co-piloted by actual food stamp recepients shouldn't be above placing his mainline crews in M-6's.

kingairip
12-30-2014, 05:53 PM
The gang of 12 is folding like a cheap suit. Purple Turtle is NOT going to be happy.

AirbusFO
12-30-2014, 07:34 PM
Can someone explain the reason this negotiation is "cost neutral" and what does that actually mean? I have read the MTA and everything that has come out, but I am not sure why folks are saying this negotiation is cost neutral..

EMBFlyer
12-30-2014, 08:12 PM
Can someone explain the reason this negotiation is "cost neutral" and what does that actually mean? I have read the MTA and everything that has come out, but I am not sure why folks are saying this negotiation is cost neutral..

Because the MOU for the MTA was negotiated with a "cost neutral" backstop of arbitration. That's what was agreed to.

Hueypilot
12-30-2014, 08:19 PM
Can someone explain the reason this negotiation is "cost neutral" and what does that actually mean? I have read the MTA and everything that has come out, but I am not sure why folks are saying this negotiation is cost neutral..

The actual language states that the arbitrated result must adhere to the "economic terms" of the MTA...meaning, it cannot cost more (or less) than the original contract. Things can be changed, but what's taken from one area must be given elsewhere and vice versa. The company was pretty smart to put that in there. It essentially removes any risk to them in an arbitrated result.

PurpleTurtle
12-30-2014, 08:49 PM
The gang of 12 is folding like a cheap suit. Purple Turtle is NOT going to be happy.

Don't mind me. Wait six months or a year and let's revist the naive giddy meter. :D

Hueypilot
12-30-2014, 09:28 PM
Considering not much will change work rules-wise, I'm not sure what kind of doomsday scenarios you guys are expecting that will cause all the wailing and gnashing of teeth in six months.

We're not losing duty/trip rigs. We're not losing min calendar day because we never had it. We're not getting worse LTD than we already have. We're not getting worse insurance than the nAAtives already had. The reserve system won't change measurably. We'll gain some LOS for the furloughs that we wouldn't otherwise see...last I checked they are getting 0 years currently. I dunno.

PurpleTurtle
12-30-2014, 09:55 PM
Considering not much will change work rules-wise, I'm not sure what kind of doomsday scenarios you guys are expecting that will cause all the wailing and gnashing of teeth in six months.

We're not losing duty/trip rigs. We're not losing min calendar day because we never had it. We're not getting worse LTD than we already have. We're not getting worse insurance than the nAAtives already had. The reserve system won't change measurably. We'll gain some LOS for the furloughs that we wouldn't otherwise see...last I checked they are getting 0 years currently. I dunno.

Always premature and impatient. I said "six months" and you couldn't wait six minutes. :)

kingairip
12-31-2014, 03:52 AM
Don't mind me. Wait six months or a year and let's revist the naive giddy meter.

No giddiness here. But, I do realize the futility of the situation. The battle was lost when the MOU was signed. We have two choices: bad and worse.

R57 relay
12-31-2014, 04:29 AM
No giddiness here. But, I do realize the futility of the situation. The battle was lost when the MOU was signed. We have two choices: bad and worse.

That's the bottom line. We aren't going to be all that happy whether we take the money and continue on with 11 hour 3 day trips and the other hits, or hold the line and don't get the money(but still take the hits).

Maybe, just maybe, this time when it's over we can constructively see what went wrong and join together for the next section 6, instead of just spending the next 4-5 years laying blame for the past. Yeah, I know, I'm laughing too.

R57 relay
12-31-2014, 04:34 AM
Everybody has their own list of priorities in a negotiation. My two biggest wants were a better rig and LTD improvements.

I wonder how many guys know that we had a better rig in the MOU, 1-3.25 for trips with a 24 hour layover as I recall, and that the APA gave it away for extra per diem. On my red eye centric January line that would have added 3.6 hours to my line, or about a 5% increase.

Arado 234
12-31-2014, 07:09 AM
Everybody has their own list of priorities in a negotiation.

A321 - Group III
Profit Sharing
Pay No Credit for Deadheads.

I know... Keep dreaming.

Maverick
12-31-2014, 07:42 AM
as a soon to be newhire does this proposal change the $40/hr first year pay inline with Delta/United (around $70/hr)

R57 relay
12-31-2014, 08:22 AM
as a soon to be newhire does this proposal change the $40/hr first year pay inline with Delta/United (around $70/hr)

Yes, $72.85 if I'm reading it right. Congrats and welcome.

Hueypilot
12-31-2014, 08:41 AM
Everybody has their own list of priorities in a negotiation. My two biggest wants were a better rig and LTD improvements.

I wonder how many guys know that we had a better rig in the MOU, 1-3.25 for trips with a 24 hour layover as I recall, and that the APA gave it away for extra per diem. On my red eye centric January line that would have added 3.6 hours to my line, or about a 5% increase.

I recall the MTA has the 1:3.5 rig for layovers, Sec 15 F.1.

I don't see where APA gave away the rig...it's still in there.

PurpleTurtle
12-31-2014, 08:47 AM
No giddiness here. But, I do realize the futility of the situation. The battle was lost when the MOU was signed. We have two choices: bad and worse.

B.S.

The first blood happened when the vice national officer sided with Parker, then the LAX reps kneecapped their "brothers", then the knife was broken off when the Press decided to go for a management job by allowing, encouraging, direct negotiations to the membership.

R57 relay
12-31-2014, 09:16 AM
NoI recall the MTA has the 1:3.5 rig for layovers, Sec 15 F.1.

I don't see where APA gave away the rig...it's still in there.

No, that's not the one. There was a 1-3.25 for trips that had more calendar days than duty periods. The APA gave it up, after we voted on the MOU, for a small per diem increase. A dime I think. It wouldn't be nearly as good as 5:15 calendar, or the west's long rate, but better than what we have.

R57 relay
12-31-2014, 09:22 AM
On page 18 of the pdf "What the Memorandum of Understanding Means to You" NAC 2013:

"The MTA provides for a 1:3.25 pay for sequences with more calendar days than duty periods"

A lot of people missed it, but our NAC put out an update explaining it after the APA changed it. On one of the CLT town hall calls a pilot asked when it would be implemented. How the APA changed it, after the vote but before SCS, I don't know.

Hueypilot
12-31-2014, 09:28 AM
No

No, that's not the one. There was a 1-3.25 for trips that had more calendar days than duty periods. The APA gave it up, after we voted on the MOU, for a small per diem increase. A dime I think. It wouldn't be nearly as good as 5:15 calendar, or the west's long rate, but better than what we have.

I thought that's basically what the MTA's section states. It says that the rig applies to pilots who report for trips that have at least two on-duty periods separated by one off-duty period shall have that rig applied. I'm sure there are ways the company can interpret that to avoid paying more (which is why we want calendar day), but it appears this applies to layovers as well.

R57 relay
12-31-2014, 09:43 AM
I thought that's basically what the MTA's section states. It says that the rig applies to pilots who report for trips that have at least two on-duty periods separated by one off-duty period shall have that rig applied. I'm sure there are ways the company can interpret that to avoid paying more (which is why we want calendar day), but it appears this applies to layovers as well.


It did, but as I understand it, the APA gave it up. Just 5 average dp 1-2 duty dp,an 1-3.5 trip rig.

Jetdriver7
12-31-2014, 10:03 AM
It did, but as I understand it, the APA gave it up. Just 5 average dp 1-2 duty dp,an 1-3.5 trip rig.

This appears correct to me as well. Look up the pay on red eyes and all nighters. The pay is terrible.

flyinawa
12-31-2014, 10:18 AM
Maybe, just maybe, this time when it's over we can constructively see what went wrong and join together for the next section 6, instead of just spending the next 4-5 years laying blame for the past. Yeah, I know, I'm laughing too.

We may not agree on all that much, but on this...I'm willing to raise a toast. Here's hoping we don't F it up. (yeah...we'll probably F it up)

R57 relay
12-31-2014, 10:22 AM
From the March 2013 NAC update:

"APA $87 million valuations Ė The APA has completed the valuation phase of negotiations on how to apply the $87 million of annual contract improvements. If you recall during the roadshows, we presented how the APA intended to apply the $87 million and stated that the allocation was subject to change once the final valuation process was complete. During the valuation phase, APA received the most current information on projected training events, distance learning requirements, overall block hour projections and scheduling assumptions. After reaching agreement on valuations with updated data, two items from the original APA Board guidance did not make the final list of improvements. The APA Board of Directors was presented with three scenarios, which the AA and US managements had agreed met the valuation target. To meet the agreed-upon valuation, the APA Board decided to forego the originally proposed 30 months of pay protection and the 1:3.25 additional trip rig for pairings with more calendar days than duty periods. With these two items removed from the list, there was some value left over, which when reallocated, resulted in higher per diem rates than those in the original proposal. The revised per diem rates for domestic and international operations are:

Old Rates New Rates

2014 - $2.10/$2.30 to $2.10/$2.40

2015 - $2.20/$2.50 to $2.25/$2.75

2016 - $2.20/$2.50 to $2.30/2.80

2017 - $2.25/$2.60 to $2.30/2.80

2018 - $2.30/$2.70 to $2.30/2.80"

It wasn't nearly as good as the west long rate, but would have helped the sub 15 hour 3 days.

R57 relay
12-31-2014, 10:24 AM
We may not agree on all that much, but on this...I'm willing to raise a toast. Here's hoping we don't F it up. (yeah...we'll probably F it up)

You seem like a pretty reasonable guy. Outside of the Nic we'd probably agree on a lot of things.

This looks like LOA 93 again. Years later and the RC4 and giveaway gang are still laying blame.

Happy New Year to you.

Just trust them
12-31-2014, 10:52 AM
This looks like LOA 93 again.

One thing the current proposal doesn't have in common with LOA 93 is that LOA 93 came with terribly weak language to provide post-amendable date 3% annual raises. The terribly weak language got mixed up with the restoration arbitration and never truly got tested. Regardless, no 3% raises ever came. In the absence of any Merger no 3% raise was ever coming, and a new contract covering east and west would still be years away.

At least the new proposal that's about to break free from the BOD's control doesn't take any chances on weak post-amendable date pay raise language. It simply dispenses with any language whatsoever. There will be no post-amendable date pay raises. Now I'm sure it won't be an issue, I have no doubt that Doug won't drag out Section 6 negotiations for Contract 2020. Even though their first and most important labor relations tool to date is delay.

Also, as if contract details matter, LUS reserve pilots will no longer be able to move days off out of a vacation block. Enjoy all that extra MOU vacation which they just made disappear. I'm sure when PBS hits a reserve pilot will be able to claw back some days. But even then the 1 week of reserve vacation which meant 19 days off that month previously at LUS, will only mean 15 days off that month.

Oh the things that can be missed when staring only at the pay rate.

Hueypilot
12-31-2014, 11:17 AM
I spoke to the APA guys about the vacation issue, as well as some friends at AA and we're not supposed to lose the vacation days. The way it's supposed to work (and apparently this is how it's been at American for a while) is you can't move your days off outside your vacation week, but you're not supposed to get charged vacation for the days that fall on what would be considered a duty-free period. So if you have 3 days that fall within your vacation week, you're only supposed to get charged 4 days from your vacation bank.

It's not as good as being able to slide your days out of the week, but at least you don't lose vacation days. Now, after talking to our LUS scheduling supervisor, they didn't seem aware of that...they acted as though you just lose that time. I'm going to keep an eye on my vacation bank and if I'm charged for 7 then I'm going to talk to APA about getting the two days off back (I had two fall within my week in January).

Also...reading in the MTA it says we're supposed to get a 3.5 to 1 rig for off-duty periods in between our duty periods (I'm assuming that means a layover). What's that all about?

And if APA traded the aforementioned 1:3.25 rig away for more per diem to pass the MTA, then whether we vote for or against any potential new TA with increased pay rates in January still won't really change that reality. Even if we all vote no and go to arbitration and "stick to the Green Book", if that did happen as described above (traded the rig for per diem), then we still won't have that rig since it's not in the current Green Book (i.e., the MTA).

Just trust them
12-31-2014, 12:32 PM
I spoke to the APA guys about the vacation issue, as well as some friends at AA and we're not supposed to lose the vacation days. The way it's supposed to work (and apparently this is how it's been at American for a while) is you can't move your days off outside your vacation week, but you're not supposed to get charged vacation for the days that fall on what would be considered a duty-free period. So if you have 3 days that fall within your vacation week, you're only supposed to get charged 4 days from your vacation bank.

It's not as good as being able to slide your days out of the week, but at least you don't lose vacation days. Now, after talking to our LUS scheduling supervisor, they didn't seem aware of that...they acted as though you just lose that time. I'm going to keep an eye on my vacation bank and if I'm charged for 7 then I'm going to talk to APA about getting the two days off back (I had two fall within my week in January).

Also...reading in the MTA it says we're supposed to get a 3.5 to 1 rig for off-duty periods in between our duty periods (I'm assuming that means a layover). What's that all about?

And if APA traded the aforementioned 1:3.25 rig away for more per diem to pass the MTA, then whether we vote for or against any potential new TA with increased pay rates in January still won't really change that reality. Even if we all vote no and go to arbitration and "stick to the Green Book", if that did happen as described above (traded the rig for per diem), then we still won't have that rig since it's not in the current Green Book (i.e., the MTA).

I can find no language in the MTA that supports what you describe above for reserve pilot vacation. Rest assured that vacation will be managed by the company in it's favor to the extreme. By the sounds of it, scheduling hasn't yet got the memo and it looks like you'll make out better than you probably should for January. By next January, there will be 2 other off days outside of your vacation block which will become duty days. Section 15... if you are only available for 24 days, you only get 9 off in those 24 days.

While you are right that the rigs will be in the Green Book as-is if we all vote no and go to arbitration, it is also true that the items the Company wants to get rid of will still be there too. That is what should be leveraging and motivating a negotiation. Unfortunately negotiations ended when APA fell for Doug's siren song almost 3 years ago.

PurpleTurtle
12-31-2014, 01:51 PM
I can find no language in the MTA that supports what you describe above for reserve pilot vacation. Rest assured that vacation will be managed by the company in it's favor to the extreme. By the sounds of it, scheduling hasn't yet got the memo and it looks like you'll make out better than you probably should for January. By next January, there will be 2 other off days outside of your vacation block which will become duty days. Section 15... if you are only available for 24 days, you only get 9 off in those 24 days.

While you are right that the rigs will be in the Green Book as-is if we all vote no and go to arbitration, it is also true that the items the Company wants to get rid of will still be there too. That is what should be leveraging and motivating a negotiation. Unfortunately negotiations ended when APA fell for Doug's siren song almost 3 years ago.

Yes, exactly. The company is buying concessions they cannot get in arbitration, but concessions that they can get by bedazzling and scarring the membership directly... if we don't sell cheep then Parker will be back to buy those items regardless of the bs lies he is telling.

There is a reason Kirby wrote a letter directly to the membership to get past the BOD. The BOD wasn't selling cheep even as split and divided as it was. Kirby ignited a mob.

We see this every time, and yet the "leaders" never can get ahead of it... Even worse, some are obviously complicit.

PurpleTurtle
12-31-2014, 02:04 PM
Guys make this way too complicated. We are arguing about what the concessions are or aren't.... But the fact is we are going to sell regardless...

The only real issue is how much will Parker pay to get them.... From a union it would be industry standard cost, from a mob in disunity it will be cheap. Very cheap, much cheaper than Delta.

R57 relay
12-31-2014, 03:38 PM
Guys make this way too complicated. We are arguing about what the concessions are or aren't.... But the fact is we are going to sell regardless...

The only real issue is how much will Parker pay to get them.... From a union it would be industry standard cost, from a mob in disunity it will be cheap. Very cheap, much cheaper than Delta.
You cannot sell what has already been sold PT.

You seem to be one of the "bring them to their knees!" Set. Why you haven't figured out that won't happen is beyond me.

eaglefly
12-31-2014, 03:47 PM
Guys make this way too complicated. We are arguing about what the concessions are or aren't.... But the fact is we are going to sell regardless...

The only real issue is how much will Parker pay to get them.... From a union it would be industry standard cost, from a mob in disunity it will be cheap. Very cheap, much cheaper than Delta.

Yup. From the beginning it was only a matter of time. Parker's initial counter would be sweetened slightly reeling in a portion of pilots and then an ultimatum would materialize snagging more. At that point, all they had to do was go directly to those reel in to pressure the BOd and wa'la........a busted union.

That's what Jerry does.

2020 will just be Groundhog Day for AA pilots. :cool:

R57 relay
12-31-2014, 03:53 PM
Yup. From the beginning it was only a matter of time. Parker's initial counter would be sweetened slightly reeling in a portion of pilots and then an ultimatum would materialize snagging more. At that point, all they had to do was go directly to those reel in to pressure the BOd and wa'la........a busted union.

That's what Jerry does.

2020 will just be Groundhog Day for AA pilots. :cool:


Now you learn. A couple of years ago it was "We've got this boys."

bassslayer
12-31-2014, 04:37 PM
Yup. From the beginning it was only a matter of time. Parker's initial counter would be sweetened slightly reeling in a portion of pilots and then an ultimatum would materialize snagging more. At that point, all they had to do was go directly to those reel in to pressure the BOd and wa'la........a busted union.

That's what Jerry does.

2020 will just be Groundhog Day for AA pilots. :cool:

They didn't need Jerry Glass. Lindsey Lohan could have broken this union. People can say what they want about USAPA but at least the hardliners stood up for what they believed in. Right or completely wrong, at least they had balls

PurpleTurtle
12-31-2014, 05:01 PM
You cannot sell what has already been sold PT.

You seem to be one of the "bring them to their knees!" Set. Why you haven't figured out that won't happen is beyond me.

Couldn't be further from the truth. This isn't about manipulation or forcing anything. Parker for business reasons needs seven industry standard concessions to be on par with Delta costs. He will buy.

The seven concessions Parker is offering to buy are not already sold. He cannot get them by any other means, except us agreeing to sell them, and we will sell them.. It's only a matter of price and when.... As a union that negotiated or a mob that sold cheep in disunity. :cool:

I've never seen a pilot union negotiate. I don't expect to see one now.

The vice parroted Parker's negotiating position.
The LAX reps kneecapped the union's counter.
The prez encouraged direct negotiating.
The APA negotiating chairman openly parroted Parker's negotiating position.
The members are begging the BOD to react to Kirby's negotiating letter.
The Crew News Gospel is believed by the majority.

I now understand why some "union leaders" turncoat...It's the only way to be unmoored from a bunch of ignorant wannabes that couldn't negotiate their way out of wet tiisue handcuffs.

Happy New Year!

PurpleTurtle
12-31-2014, 05:08 PM
Yup. From the beginning it was only a matter of time. Parker's initial counter would be sweetened slightly reeling in a portion of pilots and then an ultimatum would materialize snagging more. At that point, all they had to do was go directly to those reel in to pressure the BOd and wa'la........a busted union.

That's what Jerry does.

2020 will just be Groundhog Day for AA pilots. :cool:

It didn't have to be that way. We all knew the danger of direct negotiating. We all knew the union busting playbook. We have individualists that never intended to have any patience for a union, and Glass knew their price.

PurpleTurtle
12-31-2014, 06:40 PM
Calendar Day...

There seems to be a new push on C&R that almost everyone can agree to... The idea that the BOD could vote in favor of the Kirby letter, without sending it out for membership ratification, IF.. IF it included calendar day...

It would be the win for everyone (like Eaglefly has been preaching).

The BOD could unify. The membership could all agree its a win. Parker could move on quickly. And "Going for Great" could get a boost from perceived new labor relations.

Hmmm....

Even seniority #27 thinks it's a good idea.

R57 relay
12-31-2014, 06:49 PM
Couldn't be further from the truth. This isn't about manipulation or forcing anything. Parker for business reasons needs seven industry standard concessions to be on par with Delta costs. He will buy.

The seven concessions Parker is offering to buy are not already sold. He cannot get them by any other means, except us agreeing to sell them, and we will sell them.. It's only a matter of price and when.... As a union that negotiated or a mob that sold cheep in disunity. :cool:

I've never seen a pilot union negotiate. I don't expect to see one now.

The vice parroted Parker's negotiating position.
The LAX reps kneecapped the union's counter.
The prez encouraged direct negotiating.
The APA negotiating chairman openly parroted Parker's negotiating position.
The members are begging the BOD to react to Kirby's negotiating letter.
The Crew News Gospel is believed by the majority.

I now understand why some "union leaders" turncoat...It's the only way to be unmoored from a bunch of ignorant wannabes that couldn't negotiate their way out of wet tiisue handcuffs.

Happy New Year!

I agree with you about LAX, but I only see one thing that Parker really needs.

Anyway, Happy New Year.

eaglefly
12-31-2014, 08:22 PM
They didn't need Jerry Glass. Lindsey Lohan could have broken this union. People can say what they want about USAPA but at least the hardliners stood up for what they believed in. Right or completely wrong, at least they had balls

Well, we'll have to see the breakdown on the vote to send it to the pilots. If the USAPA reps hold their ground, then I'll concede your assertion. As for the biased claims of one here, I haven't learned anything new "now". My contention all along was that regarding Parker's initial proposal, minor sweetening would occur (it did) and eventually he'd draw a line with an ultimatum (he did) and regarding the BOD, they'd punt to the pilots (they will).

It will pass (although without my help).

eaglefly
12-31-2014, 08:25 PM
It didn't have to be that way. We all knew the danger of direct negotiating. We all knew the union busting playbook. We have individualists that never intended to have any patience for a union, and Glass knew their price.

Actually, I think it would indeed have ended this way. The U pilots didn't experience the JCBA and claim disasters that were precursors to this inevitable conclusion and they ensured this predictable result.

eaglefly
12-31-2014, 08:26 PM
Calendar Day...

There seems to be a new push on C&R that almost everyone can agree to... The idea that the BOD could vote in favor of the Kirby letter, without sending it out for membership ratification, IF.. IF it included calendar day...

It would be the win for everyone (like Eaglefly has been preaching).

The BOD could unify. The membership could all agree its a win. Parker could move on quickly. And "Going for Great" could get a boost from perceived new labor relations.

Hmmm....

Even seniority #27 thinks it's a good idea.

We can always dream.......:rolleyes:

Oh well, back to pointy hats and noise makers. :)

Route66
01-01-2015, 02:40 AM
Couldn't be further from the truth. This isn't about manipulation or forcing anything. Parker for business reasons needs seven industry standard concessions to be on par with Delta costs. He will buy.

The seven concessions Parker is offering to buy are not already sold. He cannot get them by any other means, except us agreeing to sell them, and we will sell them.. It's only a matter of price and when.... As a union that negotiated or a mob that sold cheep in disunity. :cool:

I've never seen a pilot union negotiate. I don't expect to see one now.

The vice parroted Parker's negotiating position.
The LAX reps kneecapped the union's counter.
The prez encouraged direct negotiating.
The APA negotiating chairman openly parroted Parker's negotiating position.
The members are begging the BOD to react to Kirby's negotiating letter.
The Crew News Gospel is believed by the majority.

I now understand why some "union leaders" turncoat...It's the only way to be unmoored from a bunch of ignorant wannabes that couldn't negotiate their way out of wet tiisue handcuffs.

Happy New Year!

And with union "friends" like you guys AA73, EF, who needs enemies. Look who turned out to vote....not that anyone really cares. Over one thousand pilots in each domicile. Yeah, APA has your back.

APA INFORMATION HOTLINE

This is APA Communications Director Gregg Overman with the APA Information Hotline for Tuesday, Dec. 30.

DOMICILE ELECTION RESULTS: BallotPoint has certified the following results.

For the CLT vice chairman election round: FO Courtney Allen Borman received 216 votes, and CA Ron Nelson received 226 votes. Therefore, CA Ron Nelson has been elected as CLT vice chairman for the remainder of the term of office through Oct. 31, 2016.

For the PHL vice chairman election round: FO Paul Music received 367 votes, and FO Wesley A. Smith received 118 votes. Therefore, FO Paul Music has been elected as PHL vice chairman for the remainder of the term of office through Oct. 31, 2015.

APA BOARD OF DIRECTORS SPECIAL MEETING; NEW YEAR'S DAY HOLIDAY SCHEDULE: The APA board of directors is scheduled to convene at APA headquarters Jan. 2 and 3 regarding next steps in the joint collective bargaining agreement negotiations.

APA will close at 3 p.m. Central tomorrow for the New Year's Day holiday and will reopen at 8 a.m. Central on Jan. 2.

That's it for now. Thank you for checking this hotline.

PurpleTurtle
01-01-2015, 10:09 AM
And with union "friends" like you guys AA73, EF, who needs enemies. Look who turned out to vote....not that anyone really cares. Over one thousand pilots in each domicile. Yeah, APA has your back.

APA INFORMATION HOTLINE

This is APA Communications Director Gregg Overman with the APA Information Hotline for Tuesday, Dec. 30.

DOMICILE ELECTION RESULTS: BallotPoint has certified the following results.

For the CLT vice chairman election round: FO Courtney Allen Borman received 216 votes, and CA Ron Nelson received 226 votes. Therefore, CA Ron Nelson has been elected as CLT vice chairman for the remainder of the term of office through Oct. 31, 2016.

For the PHL vice chairman election round: FO Paul Music received 367 votes, and FO Wesley A. Smith received 118 votes. Therefore, FO Paul Music has been elected as PHL vice chairman for the remainder of the term of office through Oct. 31, 2015.

APA BOARD OF DIRECTORS SPECIAL MEETING; NEW YEAR'S DAY HOLIDAY SCHEDULE: The APA board of directors is scheduled to convene at APA headquarters Jan. 2 and 3 regarding next steps in the joint collective bargaining agreement negotiations.

APA will close at 3 p.m. Central tomorrow for the New Year's Day holiday and will reopen at 8 a.m. Central on Jan. 2.

That's it for now. Thank you for checking this hotline.

What's your point?

I voted.

Did you even join APA? Are you even qualified to vote? Tell the truth. :)

Sliceback
01-01-2015, 11:14 AM
Lots of people who aren't qualified to vote vote anyway. That includes a lot of eligible voters.

Imapilot2
01-01-2015, 11:30 AM
Just curious why do guys keep saying you are going to be overnighting at Motel 6 now? Is this BS or possible? Hotel quality is one benefit never to get back if lost.

450knotOffice
01-01-2015, 01:40 PM
No basis for that fear bomb. Pure wild speculation.

PurpleTurtle
01-01-2015, 02:21 PM
Just curious why do guys keep saying you are going to be overnighting at Motel 6 now? Is this BS or possible? Hotel quality is one benefit never to get back if lost.

We already stay in the Super 8, the Days Inn, The Comfort Inn, and various other substand hotels.

StratoSoda
01-01-2015, 03:17 PM
We already stay in the Super 8, the Days Inn, The Comfort Inn, and various other substand hotels.


Seriously?

Capt Hindsight
01-01-2015, 03:59 PM
We already stay in the Super 8, the Days Inn, The Comfort Inn, and various other substand hotels.

C'mon PT. You're scaring the kids. :D Haven't seen a Super 8 or Days Inn on the PHL 737 or small bus yet. Not saying we couldn't do better in some spots but I think you're painting the picture a few shades too dark.

Capt H

texaspilot76
01-01-2015, 04:08 PM
C'mon PT. You're scaring the kids. :D Haven't seen a Super 8 or Days Inn on the PHL 737 or small bus yet. Not saying we couldn't do better in some spots but I think you're painting the picture a few shades too dark.

Capt H

I agree. Our hotels are not bad. I also could care less if we stay in a Hilton vs a Wingate. Matter of fact, the lesser priced hotels actually give free WiFi and breakfast.

As far as where we stay now, I haven't been to any real bad hotels. Don't listen to Purple Turtle. He is full of negativity on everything.

Diesel1030
01-01-2015, 04:39 PM
Calendar Day


Send your sound offs

StratoSoda
01-01-2015, 04:45 PM
I agree. Our hotels are not bad. I also could care less if we stay in a Hilton vs a Wingate. Matter of fact, the lesser priced hotels actually give free WiFi and breakfast.



As far as where we stay now, I haven't been to any real bad hotels. Don't listen to Purple Turtle. He is full of negativity on everything.


I was getting scared I might be headed to Colgan with better pay! I'm excited to start either way, if I'm lucky hopefully this will be my last job until I retire.

This forum has been my information hub about the company and I've had to remind myself that this is most likely not representative of what it's actually like. I do appreciate getting some insight though.

AirbusFO
01-01-2015, 07:10 PM
I am a yes voter, I did the math last week and it makes a ton of sense to me to vote yes for this offer--Except for the HBT issue that I don't understand well enough (which is why I am unsolid)..The reason I will vote yes is outlined:

First and foremost--as others have said--the Cost neutral backstop to arbitration in this negotiation renders moot many things that I THINK we should get due to the company making 5 billion per quarter, gas being at $60 a barrel, projections for the next few years being solid and Doug, et al walking away with bucketfuls of cash...That ship sailed when the MTA was voted in---UNTIL we can fully amend the contract IN FULL, (2016 open, 2018 for the MTA or 2018 open 2019 for the Latest offer) NONE OF THAT MATTERS--To me this means that the QOL improvements that I want and DESERVE due to us doing well have to be paid for by giving up something to keep the cost neutral---

5 hr (or 5 10)min day
321 Carve out
Improvements to the Reserve System
Profit Sharing
3.5 Trip Rig
Better Pay Protection
Solid work Rules for PBS

When the contract is amendable--these Items should be FIRST on the list, and I will gladly vote Hell No until we get these AND industry standard pay.

Unfortunately, in this negotiation, NONE OF THESE THINGS ARE AN OPTION--Unless we are willing to pay for it....and I am not willing to go backwards from the MTA rates and rules to buy any of these things yet...

So given that--to boil down the offer that IS on the table--What the company has indicated they want to buy (Doug's 7 items) and what they are willing to pay for it (19% pay raise+4% as blood money to get it done 23"% and 3% raise per year). This is the analysis as I see Doug's 7 Items:

1) One Year Extension--Solid Loss for Pilots

2) Combining of Int/Dom Divisions--Solid Loss for Pilots--with caveats

3) Elimination of Home Based Time--I don't understand this one enough to know what is going on here

4) Vacancy Bids hold from Training--Vacancy Bids will cover multiple months--I don't see this a a loss or gain for either side-simply an alignment/housekeeping function

5) Short Call Report Time--Notwithstanding the chance for management trickery--this seems to be the same boilerplate that is in other contracts (Delta)--Until proven otherwise, I see this as another alignment/housekeeping function

6) Overnight Sim sessions for Landing Currency--AS LONG AS THE PROPOSED COMPANY LANGUAGE STAYS IN AS IS...Another Alignment/Housekeeping/efficiency function--Without the language protection I expect this to be abused by management

7) Benefits Excise Tax--My opinion--NO ONE knows what is going to happen with the ACA/employer mandate/Cadillac medical tax nutroll...I appreciate both the company and the APA at least trying to develop a framework to discuss.

To further edify these Items--1-3 are really the sticking points to the negotiation

Item 1--Getting to a fully amendable contract earlier is better for pilots--we NEED to open up the contract to get gains--what the logic here is--How much are we losing by extending the amendable date one year? and is a 23% raise for the next 4 years enough to offset the loss of one year of amendability? When I ran my numbers here--I used the MTA rates until 2018 then a 28% gain with a new contract until 2020, and I compared it to a 23%+3%/year raise from now until 2020--including on both calcs the raise additions to the 16% pension contribution(I figure Doug will delay at least a year to get us a new contract)--When I ran these numbers--for me I ended up with about 50k more in my pocket at the same time in 2020...At which point the amendability issue is then moot...

Item 2--The Domestic/International fence is a solid loss of 200 widebody positions for pilots--No way around this fact--the only way to make those up is by growth--The way I see this Item--Is that Industry Standard is That this fence will come down at some point due to the fact that AA is the ONLY carrier with the fence--If not in this negotiation, then when the contract is amendable--the company will come back with another offer for this--Unfortunately--If we don't sell it at some point for a fair value--I see this as being extremely vulnerable in arbitration (not necessarily in this arbitration but at some point in the future) due to the industry standard of it not existing anywhere else--personally I would rather sell it now for the pay raise we are getting (The aforementioned portion of 50k/2020), when it WILL NOT mean furloughs. With the attrition right now these positions will be removed without having to actually reduce staff; at some point--when the economy turns and this gets turned off in an arbitration it WILL mean 200 folks get furloughed..

Item 3--I freely admit that I don;t understand this one enough to make an educated decision about it.

So to wrap up this analysis and bottom line it--I will vote yes at this point--It will cost the company 50k extra between now and 2020 to entice me to give up the international/domestic fence and the HBT (Which I am keeping an open mind about)--I am one of the newest folks here to, so most everyone else will get more than me..Everything else in the MTA is as is, and Items 4-7 are simply housekeeping items..

Slings and Arrows....NOW...

Hueypilot
01-01-2015, 08:05 PM
We already stay in the Super 8, the Days Inn, The Comfort Inn, and various other substand hotels.

Worst hotel I've stayed at so far was a La Quinta in PIT. It wasn't great but not bad (5 out of 10). Next is probably the Palos Verdes at LAX (2 out of 10)...the hotel itself is worse than the La Quinta, but the location makes up for it...but we could certainly do far better.

Everything else I've stayed in so far I'd rate a solid 7+ on a 1-10 scale.

EMBFlyer
01-01-2015, 08:55 PM
Worst hotel I've stayed at so far was a La Quinta in PIT. It wasn't great but not bad (5 out of 10). Next is probably the Palos Verdes at LAX (2 out of 10)...the hotel itself is worse than the La Quinta, but the location makes up for it...but we could certainly do far better.

Everything else I've stayed in so far I'd rate a solid 7+ on a 1-10 scale.

You obviously haven't stayed at the Hotel Pennsylvania on the long LGA. You never had the pleasure of the Days Inn Bradley. We also stay at a Days Inn on the short BUF. The Holiday Inn Mt. Prospect is pretty bad, too. Every other airline is downtown on their long layovers. We're out in the middle of nowhere, next to Costco.

Saabs
01-01-2015, 09:05 PM
Let's not forget a CLARION as a crew hotel for one of our hubs. Our hotels are lacking but I don't think it's an issue in the proposal.

Pacman
01-01-2015, 09:18 PM
Matter of fact, the lesser priced hotels actually give free WiFi and breakfast.

I know you are just trolling but this drives me nuts. Every hotel but one offers free wifi and a free waffle doesnt make up for a two-star hotel. This is not mesa.

Sliceback
01-02-2015, 03:12 AM
I know you are just trolling but this drives me nuts. Every hotel but one offers free wifi and a free waffle doesnt make up for a two-star hotel. This is not mesa.

"Every hotel but one"? I've been to several that don't have free wifi.

Route66
01-02-2015, 04:08 AM
I was getting scared I might be headed to Colgan with better pay! I'm excited to start either way, if I'm lucky hopefully this will be my last job until I retire.

This forum has been my information hub about the company and I've had to remind myself that this is most likely not representative of what it's actually like. I do appreciate getting some insight though.

Congratulations on coming here. You should have a very good career. My advice to you is to focus on doing the very best job while your here because your family depends on it. Enjoy your family while you can and take %99 of what is said from the unions as tripe. The web board is a better and fair source of information ONLY if you can parse the wheat from the chaff. And there is a LOT of chaff!

The best source of information will be your contract and calling the Chief Pilots office for questions. They will be of more help than the union. There is WAY too much negative waves, rhetoric and discord from the APA.

CanoePilot
01-02-2015, 04:45 AM
I was getting scared I might be headed to Colgan with better pay! I'm excited to start either way, if I'm lucky hopefully this will be my last job until I retire.

This forum has been my information hub about the company and I've had to remind myself that this is most likely not representative of what it's actually like. I do appreciate getting some insight though.

The coolness wears off pretty quick, this place is mesa with airbuses.

Here are a list of the nasiest hotels we have.

Days Inn BUF
Hotel Penn LGA
Palos Verdes LAX
Sherry MIA
Pear Tree Inn STL
Best Western SEA
Radisson BDL
Holiday Inn ORD
Circus Circus RNO
Fairfield Inn RSW
Radisson SJU
Millennium BUF
La Quinta PIT
Country Inn MSP
Clarion PHL

These are all I can remember but they are horrible, most are disgustingly filthy and are also in horrible locations. This is what happens when lazy over 55 flight attendants with asses the size of the astrodome make the hotel decisions.

StratoSoda
01-02-2015, 04:48 AM
No offense but I've always believed life is what you make of it. It can always be better or worse.

Coming off of lots of deployments and working at a regional I have a feeling AA will be much better than "Mesa"

CanoePilot
01-02-2015, 04:59 AM
No offense but I've always believed life is what you make of it. It can always be better or worse.

Coming off of lots of deployments and working at a regional I have a feeling AA will be much better than "Mesa"

We all thought that. Even mesa has a min day.

Route66
01-02-2015, 05:01 AM
No offense but I've always believed life is what you make of it. It can always be better or worse.

Coming off of lots of deployments and working at a regional I have a feeling AA will be much better than "Mesa"

None taken, although I think too many pilots get wrapped up around the axle about things. I agree with you. Welcome!

kalymnos
01-02-2015, 08:52 AM
The 321 increase is a VERY big deal, American has already sent a letter if interest on the 321 NEOLR that will replace the 757 and be used on international routes. From what I understand the majority of the fleet growth will be the 321, correct me if Im wrong, but we are retiring more 320 and 319's. IT seems to be a backdoor way of getting cheap labor on longer and profitable routes.

American Air Mulls Airbus Jet Aimed at Boeing 757?s Niche - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-04/american-air-mulls-airbus-jet-aimed-at-boeing-757-s-niche.html)

PurpleTurtle
01-02-2015, 09:40 AM
No offense but I've always believed life is what you make of it. It can always be better or worse.

Coming off of lots of deployments and working at a regional I have a feeling AA will be much better than "Mesa"

In the Mesa to Delta continuum AA is presently dead center, but our profits are higher, we work on average 4-5 days more per month, and get paid far less (several moths worth of pay).

Happiness is found in being willfully ignorant of all things other than your scheduling rules and your bold face memory items. :)

Saabs
01-02-2015, 10:21 AM
In the Mesa to Delta continuum AA is presently dead center, but our profits are higher, we work on average 4-5 days more per month, and get paid far less (several moths worth of pay).

Happiness is found in being willfully ignorant of all things other than your scheduling rules and your bold face memory items. :)

This. For anyone who hasn't been enhanced 3xp on the APA website please do so. AA schedules are nothing like airways. 3 on 2 off all month. That's 2 to 3 extra trips/commutes that AA guys fly a month vs united or delta due to no calendar day on many lines.

Saabs
01-02-2015, 10:23 AM
Also for those of you who think u are guaranteed 12 or 13 days off a month think again, I believe it's 10 for line holders at AA.

Al Czervik
01-02-2015, 10:54 AM
This. For anyone who hasn't been enhanced 3xp on the APA website please do so. AA schedules are nothing like airways. 3 on 2 off all month. That's 2 to 3 extra trips/commutes that AA guys fly a month vs united or delta due to no calendar day on many lines.

I think you will see changes on both sides with pbs.

Saabs
01-02-2015, 10:56 AM
I think you will see changes on both sides with pbs.

I agree, but I still think junior guys will get a lot of 11 hour 3 days. I can't imagine doing 7 trips in one month...

viper548
01-02-2015, 11:02 AM
There should be a property in PBS to allow you to start a pairing on the same calendar day you finish a pairing as long is there is legal rest in between the two. This may be beneficial to some.

aa73
01-02-2015, 12:17 PM
Not pointing fingers here but my Westie buddy texted me his December schedule. He works the first 14 days almost in a row! then has a bunch of time off. Not for nothing but I'd rather have 3 on 2 off then 14 days in a row. Both cases are bad but seems like the West schedules with their pbs suck!

viper548
01-02-2015, 12:32 PM
I had PBS with my last company and it seemed like my schedule every month was a crap shoot. Sometimes I'd get schedules like 6 on 2 off, 6 on 2 off then a ton of days off in the other half of the month. I didn't mind having a couple days off between work blocks, but I lived in base. I commute across country now, so that would be horrible. Paychecks were reconciled during the period we worked, so it made for one larger check with lots of tax taken out and the other one small.