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.




Vortexxx
01-05-2015, 06:22 AM
I understand we all would like to resolve this contact, BUT SLOW DOWN! How can we make an educated choice until we know the details? I will not vote to approve any contract from a Power Point presentation. Demand Final Contract Language before they allow voting. Ask, why the high pressure rush job from Management? Scares me. Vote YES or NO, but please have all the details first.


eaglefly
01-05-2015, 06:26 AM
I understand we all would like to resolve this contact, BUT SLOW DOWN! How can we make an educated choice until we know the details? I will not vote to approve any contract from a Power Point presentation. Demand Final Contract Language before they allow voting. Ask, why the high pressure rush job from Management? Scares me.

At Eagle we did that with the flow-thru (Letter 3) in 1997. Once the language came out, it told a significantly different story then the bullet points, not that it mattered as that agreement was MEC ratified as opposed to membership.

R57 relay
01-05-2015, 06:26 AM
I understand we all would like to resolve this contact, BUT SLOW DOWN! How can we make an educated choice until we know the details? I will not vote to approve any contract from a Power Point presentation. Demand Final Contract Language before they allow voting. Ask, why the high pressure rush job from Management? Scares me.

I think that is just on combining intl/dom and the APA's approval was conditional on that final language. Right?


Hueypilot
01-05-2015, 06:28 AM
I think that is just on combining intl/dom and the APA's approval was conditional on that final language. Right?

That's the way I took it. I don't think many are saying they'll blindly vote yes on anything thrown their way. Most who say they'll vote yes will vote yes barring any gross contractual issues present in the language. Given the company asks, they seem pretty specific, so that language shouldn't be overly complex.

Vortexxx
01-05-2015, 06:41 AM
My point is simple. Final Contract Language, all Contract! The devil is in the details! Sure the pay rates are published and most pilots stop right at that page. We need the whole deal to review.

R57 relay
01-05-2015, 06:48 AM
My point is simple. Final Contract Language, all Contract! The devil is in the details! Sure the pay rates are published and most pilots stop right at that page. We need the whole deal to review.

Absolutely. But how many will read it? From the posts on here about rigs it's obvious that few have even opened up the MTA.

We get burned on this all the time. We voted for a MOU that had a 1-3.25 rig for trips with more days than DPs, only to have the APA give it away.

One sad fact is that the contracts are written in a way that 10 guys could read it and get 10 different interpretations. Probably by design.

I want the theory that the company 100% cannot get HBT in arbitration spelled out in clear terms.

We have a lousy track record with arbitration.

eaglefly
01-05-2015, 07:02 AM
My point is simple. Final Contract Language, all Contract! The devil is in the details! Sure the pay rates are published and most pilots stop right at that page. We need the whole deal to review.

So as long as the **** pile's peanuts and corn kernels are still intact, it's edible ?

No thanks. :cool:

SewerPipeDvr
01-05-2015, 12:11 PM
My point is simple. Final Contract Language, all Contract! The devil is in the details! Sure the pay rates are published and most pilots stop right at that page. We need the whole deal to review.
What is the most profitable area of a credit card company or bank? Penalty and fees. Why? Because you don't read the contract. All that fine print. Pages that make you put it down and sign anyway. You show a good grasp of what is happening here. Most pilots are no different than Joe6Pack getting his new rims and tires. He won't read the fine print. But he got a killer deal. He will pay for that deal. Over and over. Easy money.

You not only need "the whole deal to review", you need the TIME to review it. Wonder why there is such a rush to a deal? Joe will sign.

SewerPipeDvr
01-05-2015, 12:26 PM
Absolutely. But how many will read it? From the posts on here about rigs it's obvious that few have even opened up the MTA.

We get burned on this all the time. We voted for a MOU that had a 1-3.25 rig for trips with more days than DPs, only to have the APA give it away.

One sad fact is that the contracts are written in a way that 10 guys could read it and get 10 different interpretations. Probably by design.

I want the theory that the company 100% cannot get HBT in arbitration spelled out in clear terms.

We have a lousy track record with arbitration.

Give the man a cigar! Everything done at this level is planned far in advance. Abso-damn-lutely by design. That is why the company pays the big bucks (if you found out how much the company was paying their attorneys you would eat a bottle of Tums). I will also abso-damn-lutely guarantee there are ten different versions already written, depending on need. My record was 22 variations. I made a killer bonus that year.

eaglefly
01-05-2015, 12:30 PM
Give the man a cigar! Everything done at this level is planned far in advance. Abso-damn-lutely by design. That is why the company pays the big bucks (if you found out how much the company was paying their attorneys you would eat a bottle of Tums). I will also abso-damn-lutely guarantee there are ten different versions already written, depending on need. My record was 22 variations. I made a killer bonus that year.

Of course, which makes it all the more puzzling (and tragic) that we are willing to perpetuate the same errors time and again expecting a different result. It will happen this time and it will once again in 2020...or 2025, if Parker doesn't want to come out and play for awhile.

Vortexxx
01-05-2015, 01:36 PM
This! Copied from another site.

"Without "real and meaningful" length of service, we pledge to defeat any proposal!"
That's what we all proclaimed the last time we communicated our position to everyone involved. It is now clear that we have no choice but to make good on that promise.

2 Years of LOS not only falls far short of what we expected based on precedent, it's also an insult to every one of us who suffered through the "Lost Decade" as a furloughed pilot.

While the supporters of this proposal will argue that it is a 23-30% raise, it still fails to properly recognize the sacrifices that we made and are continuing to make. In our last blast, we asked you to send an email to BOD members, senior management, and chief pilots containing the clear promise to vote “No” on any proposal that doesn’t contain at least 6 years of LOS. We are committed to following through with that promise and urge you to do the same.

Let's not forget that we as a group came off our position of Full (100%) LOS to meet everyone in the middle at 50% (6 year restoration), which we called "real and meaningful." The Company's offer of 2 years is not even 17% and is therefore unacceptable! APA's last proposal almost met our terms but management has chosen to reject it categorically and instead is attempting to circumvent our Union by negotiating with the pilot group directly by offering a 4% across the board raise to all employees while declaring negotiations over. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that new management is trying to prove our Union irrelevant and weaken it irreparably. Union busting 101!

There are other very important issues that negatively affect us, the junior, if a "Yes" vote prevails:


Lacking industry standard "Calendar Day" will continue forcing many of us on junior lines to fly 20+ days each month away from home for less pay.

The integration of International and Domestic Divisions; saving management from having to split up LUS, a very time consuming programing and logistics nightmare, not to mention the obvious safety issues of having to retrain a large contingent of domestic pilots at LAA. What are they offering us in return?

HBT based start times vs. local; might in the future provide more flying but in the present will reduce the need for FOs and FB/FCs in the system, directly affecting the ability of junior pilots to hold better paying Group 3 & 4 equipment.

LTD language; still industry lagging, preventing those affected from supplementing their incomes without losing their benefits.

Despite the gravity of these asks, company couldn't be bothered to have the contract language ready for our Union leaders.

Why are we being asked to vote on a contract we have not seen? They deliberately want to create the impression that time is of the essence and a big chunk of cash is hanging in the balance. This makes it impossible for us to fully inform ourselves of what long-term consequences these contract concessions will actually bring. No one is pretending the proposed pay rates are not alluring but look with eyes wide open at what your daily routine will be for the rest of your career and ask yourself: Is the newly proposed compensation adequate? There are far too many unknowns that we will have to deal with for years to come should this be ratified by the membership!

While it is true that an arbitrated decision almost assuredly will not contain LOS, it also will leave untouched all the other items that AAG is asking us to concede without proper compensation.

After many conversations with a cross section of our BOD Members, we've come to the conviction that voting “No” is the only way to achieve a more acceptable contract containing not only "more money" but also "real and meaningful" LOS, along with the other vital items because management will have to come back to the table to get what they want.

If the Company really wanted to, they could have proffered arbitration weeks ago... Why haven't they? It appears they are increasingly unwilling to risk further delay and loss of face with their investors on Wall Street; they promised a swift timeline to achieve the merger synergies and labor peace...their own outsized compensation packages are tied to meeting these goals.

Official Negotiations may appear to have ended for the moment, but the real deal-making behind the scenes has just begun and will continue throughout. Don't give in to their scare tactics. By voting “Yes”, we will only become industry laggards once more. We can do better and none of us can stomach being thrown under the bus again. The satisfaction of a raise, no matter how large, is fleeting. Onerous working conditions will remain a daily reality.

Vote NO!

Length of Service

Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp

texaspilot76
01-05-2015, 01:52 PM
Let me get this straight: the above poster is advocating for furloughees to accrue payscale longevity while they are on furlough?

You got to be kidding. If you're laid off, then you don't work here. All benefits and movement stops while you're gone. You shouldn't move up through the payscale while you're not active. Sorry about your luck, but laid off is laid off.

MarineGrunt
01-05-2015, 01:53 PM
^^^great post. Making a strong case for their side without berating or name calling. Imagine that.

PRS Guitars
01-05-2015, 01:57 PM
Let me get this straight: the above poster is advocating for furloughees to accrue payscale longevity while they are on furlough?

You got to be kidding. If you're laid off, then you don't work here. All benefits and movement stops while you're gone. You shouldn't move up through the payscale while you're not active. Sorry about your luck, but laid off is laid off.
I disagree, LOS is probably what troubles me the most about this deal. I'd like to see full LOS. The problem is I'm not convinced they'll get any LOS under arbitration, so this might be the best option, im just not sure.

PRS Guitars
01-05-2015, 02:02 PM
I disagree, LOS is probably what troubles me the most about this deal. I'd like to see full LOS. The problem is I'm not convinced they'll get any LOS under arbitration, so this might be the best option, im just not sure.
Wasn't sure which thread to put this in.

Anyone know where we stand on longevity pay raises (ie when one goes on the second year scale, third year scale, etc). At LUS it's Your yearly DOH anniversary at LAA its your yearly training completion anniversary.

For a new hire on the LAA side, that means delaying your pay raise by two months every year for 12 years. That probably equates to well over $100k in lost income. Seems pretty important to me that we use LUS's system. Will we have that in contractual language?

InformationEcho
01-05-2015, 02:25 PM
I can't believe this is the same APA that told AMR to pound sand with their "LBFO" in bankruptcy.

Company profitable and now folks can hardly wait to sign up for a contract with incomplete language.Remarkable study in human nature.Offer lots of money, people stampede towards it.

All the *****ing and moaning about the MOU/MTA and bankruptcy contracts,yet people can't wait to vote in something with "At management's discretion" sprinkled liberally through it, because that is what incomplete language will get you.

The LAX reps seem to be devotees of Quisling, they should reap the same rewards he did.

InformationEcho
01-05-2015, 02:27 PM
Wasn't sure which thread to put this in.

Anyone know where we stand on longevity pay raises (ie when one goes on the second year scale, third year scale, etc). At LUS it's Your yearly DOH anniversary at LAA its your yearly training completion anniversary.

For a new hire on the LAA side, that means delaying your pay raise by two months every year for 12 years. That probably equates to well over $100k in lost income. Seems pretty important to me that we use LUS's system. Will we have that in contractual language?

Unsure, in the Lemming-esque desire to "Get the raise and get it now!" there appear to be many areas of incomplete language.

Should this travesty pass, expect to lose anything that favors the employee.

Saabs
01-05-2015, 03:55 PM
Wow. A certain texas pilot has already said he deserves to go ahead of aa furloughees as a new hire third lister now he doesn't believe they deserve any LOS? Is anyone else worried about some people's mindset when it comes to unity?

ghilis101
01-05-2015, 03:59 PM
I can't believe this is the same APA that told AMR to pound sand with their "LBFO" in bankruptcy.

Company profitable and now folks can hardly wait to sign up for a contract with incomplete language.Remarkable study in human nature.Offer lots of money, people stampede towards it.

All the *****ing and moaning about the MOU/MTA and bankruptcy contracts,yet people can't wait to vote in something with "At management's discretion" sprinkled liberally through it, because that is what incomplete language will get you.

The LAX reps seem to be devotees of Quisling, they should reap the same rewards he did.

you guys are being sold a lemon, and the salesman is rushing you to buy, just sign here and get the deal done, "theres no time to waste, it wont be on the lot long." The mechanic (the BOD) gave the car a pre-purchase inspection and advised you "don't buy this car... but hey its your choice. If you really need a car then its up to you, but I don't think you should buy this car." Youre the customer, you have the purchasing power. Put your wallet back in your pocket and walk away for a better deal.

450knotOffice
01-05-2015, 04:14 PM
Personally, I have a hard time believing that a majority of our pilots would agree to this without definitive Contract language. Bullet points would kill it for all but the staunchest yes voters.

Hueypilot
01-05-2015, 04:22 PM
I don't think anyone here at least is advocating voting yes with a blank check and no contract language.

ghilis101
01-05-2015, 04:34 PM
I don't think anyone here at least is advocating voting yes with a blank check and no contract language.

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

Scoop
01-05-2015, 04:47 PM
Let me get this straight: the above poster is advocating for furloughees to accrue payscale longevity while they are on furlough?

You got to be kidding. If you're laid off, then you don't work here. All benefits and movement stops while you're gone. You shouldn't move up through the payscale while you're not active. Sorry about your luck, but laid off is laid off.



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

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

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

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

Scoop

Hueypilot
01-05-2015, 04:54 PM
I can't speak for other yes voters, but I'm not voting out of fear. I would support a TA like this out of analysis of past and present events, and out of cost/benefit comparisons.

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

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

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

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

My prediction if we vote NO on any future TA?

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

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

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

Sliceback
01-05-2015, 05:08 PM
Wasn't sure which thread to put this in.

Anyone know where we stand on longevity pay raises (ie when one goes on the second year scale, third year scale, etc). At LUS it's Your yearly DOH anniversary at LAA its your yearly training completion anniversary.

For a new hire on the LAA side, that means delaying your pay raise by two months every year for 12 years. That probably equates to well over $100k in lost income. Seems pretty important to me that we use LUS's system. Will we have that in contractual language?


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

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

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

PurpleTurtle
01-05-2015, 05:33 PM
My point is simple. Final Contract Language, all Contract! The devil is in the details! Sure the pay rates are published and most pilots stop right at that page. We need the whole deal to review.

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

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

Slow down. Quit punching buttons and yanking handles.

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

PRS Guitars
01-05-2015, 05:46 PM
Group II FO pay increases $45/hr over 11 years(2-12). $4000/yr.
Group III FO pay increases $48 over 11 years. $4400/yr.
Group IV FO pay increases $55 over 11 years. $5000/yr.

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

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

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

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

Hueypilot
01-05-2015, 05:49 PM
If you're just coming off the year in austerity, I think the second year AB pay rates that were published were around $112/hour. $75/hour if I remember correctly for 2015 first year pay. $40 per hour versus $112 an hour. Not minor.

PRS Guitars
01-05-2015, 05:54 PM
If you're just coming off the year in austerity, I think the second year AB pay rates that were published were around $112/hour. $75/hour if I remember correctly for 2015 first year pay. $40 per hour versus $112 an hour. Not minor.
Yeah, I was just sticking with MTA rates, but if the offer passes, a two month delay in second year rates would cost a new hire $12,240. Again, hopefully this gets fixed for LAA new hires.

Hueypilot
01-05-2015, 06:01 PM
Ah, ok. I see where you were going. I wish first year pay would get fixed too. But as one guy told me, "why would we care about people who aren't even on property yet?"

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

texaspilot76
01-05-2015, 06:11 PM
Wow. A certain texas pilot has already said he deserves to go ahead of aa furloughees as a new hire third lister now he doesn't believe they deserve any LOS? Is anyone else worried about some people's mindset when it comes to unity?

First off, I'm not a new hire. Second, furloughees should be considered based on how much time they actually spent on property as an active employee, in addition to their relative position on the list, not their date of hire.

You really think a furloughee that only spent one year on the property should be on top of a US pilot with 5 years continuous service?

ghilis101
01-06-2015, 05:26 AM
Ah, ok. I see where you were going. I wish first year pay would get fixed too. But as one guy told me, "why would we care about people who aren't even on property yet?"

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

Trust me most of us in the pool are watching closely, and if it was about us new hires, we'd be jumping up and down telling you to vote yes for those enticing first year payrates. But we're not zoo animals, we look past the tasty morsel in front of us and we're looking at the whole package which locks us into industry lagging pay and work rules until 2020. Vote no for you AND for us. Well all be better off for it.

Saabs
01-06-2015, 05:54 AM
First off, I'm not a new hire. Second, furloughees should be considered based on how much time they actually spent on property as an active employee, in addition to their relative position on the list, not their date of hire.

You really think a furloughee that only spent one year on the property should be on top of a US pilot with 5 years continuous service?

On top or a third lister who was hired post merger announcement? Yes. Absolutely. No questions about it. Irregardless of any DOJ stuff.m the only one who thought the merger wouldn't happen was canoe pilot.

PRS Guitars
01-11-2015, 06:17 PM
Where do we sit on this? Has the contract language been released? I can't find it on the APA site, yet on C&R a thread eluded to it having be read by a poster.

Hueypilot
01-11-2015, 07:07 PM
Where do we sit on this? Has the contract language been released? I can't find it on the APA site, yet on C&R a thread eluded to it having be read by a poster.

It's on the APA Negotiations page. Unfortunately it's the entire edited contract, so you have to weed through what's changed and not changed. Some people have been claiming to find "hidden items" when in actuality those things were already in our contract. If it wasn't lined out in red and replaced with new language, it's a carryover from the original MTA.

AB YZS
01-11-2015, 07:47 PM
Scott is coached by Glass and is trying to get us to take the bait and get 50%+1. Vote NO and we will get parity rates at or greater than their offer without concessions. Vote NO!

Scott Kirby
President


January 11, 2015

Dear Pilots:

We have heard from many of you since our letter on Friday. Thank you for reaching out. Most all of those we have heard from have asked about the January 19 deadline for ratification for the new pay rates to be retroactive to December 2. And many of you have suggested that the January 19 deadline is unreasonable, based on the representation by the APA Board that it did not receive the final Domestic-International language until January 9.

If that representation were an accurate statement of the facts, of course, it would be unreasonable to ask for a January 19 ratification. But that representation is neither accurate nor fair to our pilots. We have worked very hard to not get into the blow-by-blow account of the APA Boards inaccuracies, but with the ratification date ahead, it now seems important that we do so. The fact is that the APA Board has known about the January 19 deadline since December 23 when the Company agreed to extend the retro pay deadline for the third time. Moreover, until December 29, the APA negotiating committee and the Company had an agreed approach to the D-I issue and agreed upon language that would support that approach. Finally, after the APA Board asked for more detailed language on Domestic-International, we agreed to try, and we delivered the D-I language to the APA Board on January 3. Unfortunately, the APA Board then spent the next six days attempting to renegotiate concepts that had long been agreed to at the table, knowing full well that they had also agreed to a January 19 deadline for retroactivity, and that that date was fast approaching.

There are numerous other examples of this kind of non-helpful back and forth that have occurred over the past several months, but that isn't really important at this point. Bottom line, know that the January 19 deadline was set on December 23, agreed to by the APA Board, and that management ensured the APA Board had everything it would need to meet that deadline. One of the more distressing mischaracterizations has been the APA Board's disparagement of the Company's negotiators. Most of those are fellow employees who work in finance, labor and flight operations, and who support all of us. That team worked tirelessly and extensively over the Holidays, and we should all be proud to work with such committed individuals who, like you, simply want to move forward as one team.

So here we are, management and union debating in public but the ones getting hurt are our line pilots. You are the ones who lose two months of retroactive pay increases if the ratification date does not move. Irrespective of how we got here, the fact is that our pilots did not get the Company's proposal from the APA Board until January 9, and our line pilots deserve some time to consider the proposal. The objective of the January 19 deadline was not to rush you. The objective was to force the APA Board to act and provide our pilots the opportunity to vote on a proposal that would improve their compensation and benefits by $2 billion over the JCBA implemented by arbitration. And fortunately, that objective has been achieved. Accordingly, today we are reaching out to the APA Board to extend the date for pay retroactivity to January 30.

Thank you for bearing with us through this process. There is certainly a lot of lingering mistrust to overcome and we are committed to doing just that over time. Please take the time you need to understand our proposal and vote how you see fit. So long as the offer is ratified by January 30, the new pay rates will be effective retroactive to December 2. Thanks for taking the time to read yet another letter on this topic, and thank you for your commitment to American.


Scott

Just trust them
01-12-2015, 06:18 AM
Scott is coached by Glass and is trying to get us to take the bait and get 50%+1. Vote NO and we will get parity rates at or greater than their offer without concessions. Vote NO!

....a lot of lingering mistrust to overcome.....



This is why Jerrold gets the big bucks. Which is amazing because it is so obvious.

The Green Book as it stands is simply better in the aggregate over the life of it's term, both financially and in 'work rules'. That is why a 'No' vote is the smart economic choice.

Only 11 months left to go until a substantial industry indexed pay raise while we preserve all the leverage of the concessions they want now for pennies on the dollar.

As to the lingering mistrust... you never get a second chance to make a first impression. Even "Yes" voters know they've been played, taking the bribe doesn't equal trust.

swaayze
01-12-2015, 06:58 AM
Anyone know where we stand on longevity pay raises (ie when one goes on the second year scale, third year scale, etc). At LUS it's Your yearly DOH anniversary at LAA its your yearly training completion anniversary.

For a new hire on the LAA side, that means delaying your pay raise by two months every year for 12 years.

Been wondering the same thing. A US guy hired a month after me will hit year 2 pay more than a month earlier than I will. Hardly keeping with the theory of one set of work rules/conditions for all groups. I suspect things are so screwed that there's been little to no thought about it by the NCs (both co and APA).

inline five
01-12-2015, 07:01 AM
Been wondering the same thing. A US guy hired a month after me will hit year 2 pay more than a month earlier than I will. Hardly keeping with the theory of one set of work rules/conditions for all groups. I suspect things are so screwed that there's been little to no thought about it by the NCs (both co and APA).

I think they adopted the US system. I remember reading that change somewhere.

R57 relay
01-12-2015, 07:03 AM
It's on the APA Negotiations page. Unfortunately it's the entire edited contract, so you have to weed through what's changed and not changed. Some people have been claiming to find "hidden items" when in actuality those things were already in our contract. If it wasn't lined out in red and replaced with new language, it's a carryover from the original MTA.

Well, everyone wanted complete language, right? :D

Funny how many of them never knew we had a 1-3.25 rig in the MOU and the APA gave it up.

inline five
01-12-2015, 07:14 AM
Well, everyone wanted complete language, right? :D

Funny how many of them never knew we had a 1-3.25 rig in the MOU and the APA gave it up.

What is being lost in the JCBA pales in comparison to what was lost when signing the MOU/MTA.

eaglefly
01-12-2015, 07:38 AM
What is being lost in the JCBA pales in comparison to what was lost when signing the MOU/MTA.

So, two wrongs make a right ?

Fail.

inline five
01-12-2015, 07:45 AM
So, two wrongs make a right ?

Fail.

Try to keep it in perspective was my point.

PurpleTurtle
01-12-2015, 10:53 AM
Try to keep it in perspective was my point.

Perspective?

They have $10B in profits the first two years of a merger that Parker said was only supposed to net $1B a year.

He didn't tell us the truth on the numbers when we were negotiating the MOU, you know he isn't telling us the truth on the numbers now.

They need to come clean, and the only way that happens is if we vote to reject their concession demands.

inline five
01-12-2015, 12:08 PM
Perspective?

They have $10B in profits the first two years of a merger that Parker said was only supposed to net $1B a year.

He didn't tell us the truth on the numbers when we were negotiating the MOU, you know he isn't telling us the truth on the numbers now.

They need to come clean, and the only way that happens is if we vote to reject their concession demands.

Yeah, because Parker knew oil was going to fall 50% in 6 months.

It's all managements fault for not letting us in on their magic 8 ball predictions.

It's guys like you whom will never be satisfied, no matter what.

I don't think the $1 bil was profit. It was benefits. Airways was making close to $1 bil a year by themselves.

EDIT:
Here it is, from 2 years ago. $1 billion in combined benefits. FYI benefits are not the same as profits.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/american-airlines-us-airways-announce-11b-merger/

Just trust them
01-12-2015, 12:57 PM
Yeah, because Parker knew oil was going to fall 50% in 6 months.

It's all managements fault for not letting us in on their magic 8 ball predictions.

It's guys like you whom will never be satisfied, no matter what.



And it's the the US Airways pilots fault that L-US Airways has been through 2 bankruptcy's that gutted their contract and robbed their pension?

And it's the American Airlines Pilots fault that they went through a sham bankruptcy to gut their contract and pave the way for merger?

And now the pilot's have the arrogance to attempt to maintain what is left of the Contract, in a time of unprecedented profits, at a time where the industry after a failed de-regulation has returned to oligopoly, by saying 'No' to the Company's generosity?

The questions are rhetorical, don't bother answering.

But I do have an actual question;

Are you freelancing or did they hire you? If you're still freelancing, here's the website where you can submit your resume:

F&H Solutions Group (http://www.fhsolutionsgroup.com)

Saabs
01-12-2015, 01:44 PM
And cost neutral arbitration. ..

PurpleTurtle
01-12-2015, 01:50 PM
Yeah, because Parker knew oil was going to fall 50% in 6 months.

It's all managements fault for not letting us in on their magic 8 ball predictions.

It's guys like you whom will never be satisfied, no matter what.

I don't think the $1 bil was profit. It was benefits. Airways was making close to $1 bil a year by themselves.

EDIT:
Here it is, from 2 years ago. $1 billion in combined benefits. FYI benefits are not the same as profits.

American Airlines, US Airways announce $11B merger - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/american-airlines-us-airways-announce-11b-merger/)

I'm glad you brought up oil. The lower cost of oil doesn't even begin to explain the historic Billions in profit... but it does explain why American Airlines is supposed to make at least an extra $1.3B over and above Delta and United (because DAL and UAL hedged fuel). American positioned to save more than rival airlines on jet fuel in 2015 - MarketWatch (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/american-positioned-to-save-more-than-rival-airlines-on-jet-fuel-in-2015-2015-01-02?link=sfmw)

Nevertheless, do you really care how DUI was ably to amass $10Billion in profits in just two years? I don't.

I think its great. Now we know he can afford to pay us like he promised to!

Don't forget to keep perspective.... Parker has $10Billion, and a promise to keep... :cool:

jcountry
01-12-2015, 02:18 PM
I'm confused.

I see nothing about scope.

Am I plain missing it-it is that one of the blank sections?

dvhighdrive88
01-13-2015, 04:08 AM
Let me get this straight: the above poster is advocating for furloughees to accrue payscale longevity while they are on furlough?

You got to be kidding. If you're laid off, then you don't work here. All benefits and movement stops while you're gone. You shouldn't move up through the payscale while you're not active. Sorry about your luck, but laid off is laid off.

Does your mother know you turned out this way?

Arado 234
01-13-2015, 05:30 AM
I understand we all would like to resolve this contact, BUT SLOW DOWN! How can we make an educated choice until we know the details? I will not vote to approve any contract from a Power Point presentation. Demand Final Contract Language before they allow voting. Ask, why the high pressure rush job from Management? Scares me. Vote YES or NO, but please have all the details first.

Could somebody shed some light into the A321NEO LR issue? Is it true that it WILL have transatlantic range? If it does, the 321 group 3 pay will become the most important issue for me!

Just trust them
01-13-2015, 05:48 AM
Could somebody shed some light into the A321NEO LR issue? Is it true that it WILL have transatlantic range? If it does, the 321 group 3 pay will become the most important issue for me!

It is specifically intended to replace the 757-200W (w for winglets), being capable of operating all the routes that the 757-200W currently operates on. So yes, it is true that it will easily have transatlantic range. And deep South America range also. And Hawaii.

757-200W range is 3,850nm. A321neo-LR range 4,000nm, but 4,100nm in a two-class configuration with 164 seats.

First deliveries in 2019. Industry news reports that American Airlines has specific interest in the type, particularly as replacement for the 757.

full of luv
01-13-2015, 06:10 AM
Let me get this straight: the above poster is advocating for furloughees to accrue payscale longevity while they are on furlough?

You got to be kidding. If you're laid off, then you don't work here. All benefits and movement stops while you're gone. You shouldn't move up through the payscale while you're not active. Sorry about your luck, but laid off is laid off.

Texas,
So in your world there would be no problem in the company furloughing when things slow down. Why not just have seasonal furloughs that way the company can save on pilot costs during the winter when less demand.
You know, laid off is laid off. Glad it never happened to you to be furloughed while your company bought and outsourced as many rj's as they could to replace you for a 1/4 of the cost.
This last paragraph even makes me question if you are even truly a seniority list pilot?
Best of luck.....
LUV

eaglefly
01-13-2015, 08:20 AM
It is specifically intended to replace the 757-200W (w for winglets), being capable of operating all the routes that the 757-200W currently operates on. So yes, it is true that it will easily have transatlantic range. And deep South America range also. And Hawaii.

757-200W range is 3,850nm. A321neo-LR range 4,000nm, but 4,100nm in a two-class configuration with 164 seats.

First deliveries in 2019. Industry news reports that American Airlines has specific interest in the type, particularly as replacement for the 757.

The 321 doesn't have the performance the mighty 75 does for many SA terrain ops, so those will be taken over by 319's. Within 5-7 years AA will likely be a 5 aircraft fleet with 1 group I, 2 group II (A319/321- B738) and 2 group IV (777/787). The small number of larger buses presently in use on the U side will likely be retired or leased elsewhere.

The majority of future AA pilots will be Group II pilots.

Just trust them
01-13-2015, 08:36 AM
The 321 doesn't have the performance the mighty 75 does for many SA terrain ops, so those will be taken over by 319's. Within 5-7 years AA will likely be a 5 aircraft fleet with 1 group I, 2 group II (A319/321- B738) and 2 group IV (777/787). The small number of larger buses presently in use on the U side will likely be retired or leased elsewhere.

The majority of future AA pilots will be Group II pilots.

If the runway is long enough and it's within 1000' of sea level, the 321neoLR will be doing it. So, for sure Hawaii and most of western Europe. Agree on the SA terrain challenged areas. Any 321 will need a lot of level ground or ocean around the runway to crawl it's way to a safe altitude even with 2 engines pushing.

eaglefly
01-13-2015, 08:53 AM
If the runway is long enough and it's within 1000' of sea level, the 321neoLR will be doing it. So, for sure Hawaii and most of western Europe. Agree on the SA terrain challenged areas. Any 321 will need a lot of level ground or ocean around the runway to crawl it's way to a safe altitude even with 2 engines pushing.

I read my post and I thought that's what I said, i.e., the 321 is no good for that. Frequency and seasonal loads will likely dictate equipment choices on many of the other routes that are viable with either bus or the 737. The E-195's range and performance will mean our Group 1 pilots will be seeing there share of northern SA, CA and Caribbean destinations too. Copa flys their E-190's all over the place down there and the E-195 will be better.

Came across some of my old bid sheets from Eagle from back in 2002 along with a copy of our CBA. They're better then my present AA sheets. :( If you put the pay and 401(k) aside (the "hard dollar" items), the soft items now here at AA after both the BK concessions and now the ones we are about to hand over essentially for free, AA is now Eagle, just with larger aircraft.

Who'd have thought that possible 13 years ago ?

Just trust them
01-13-2015, 08:59 AM
I read my post and I thought that's what I said, i.e., the 321 is no good for that. Frequency and seasonal loads will likely dictate equipment choices on many of the other routes that are viable with either bus or the 737. The E-195's range and performance will mean our Group 1 pilots will be seeing there share of northern SA, CA and Caribbean destinations too. Copa flys their E-190's all over the place down there and the E-195 will be better.

Excellent point on the E195. More people should be plugging Group 1 pay rates in to their calculators before they vote on the Company's demands.

PurpleTurtle
01-13-2015, 09:11 AM
The 321 doesn't have the performance the mighty 75 does for many SA terrain ops, so those will be taken over by 319's. Within 5-7 years AA will likely be a 5 aircraft fleet with 1 group I, 2 group II (A319/321- B738) and 2 group IV (777/787). The small number of larger buses presently in use on the U side will likely be retired or leased elsewhere.

The majority of future AA pilots will be Group II pilots.

Yes mostly Group II (if they don't buy a boat load of E190s) and no Groupp III (but we will still fly those routes with the 321NEO).

PurpleTurtle
01-13-2015, 09:13 AM
I read my post and I thought that's what I said, i.e., the 321 is no good for that. Frequency and seasonal loads will likely dictate equipment choices on many of the other routes that are viable with either bus or the 737. The E-195's range and performance will mean our Group 1 pilots will be seeing there share of northern SA, CA and Caribbean destinations too. Copa flys their E-190's all over the place down there and the E-195 will be better.

Came across some of my old bid sheets from Eagle from back in 2002 along with a copy of our CBA. They're better then my present AA sheets. :( If you put the pay and 401(k) aside (the "hard dollar" items), the soft items now here at AA after both the BK concessions and now the ones we are about to hand over essentially for free, AA is now Eagle, just with larger aircraft.

Who'd have thought that possible 13 years ago ?

Who thought that? Jerry Glass and DUI.

encore
01-13-2015, 11:11 AM
The 321 doesn't have the performance the mighty 75 does for many SA terrain ops, so those will be taken over by 319's. Within 5-7 years AA will likely be a 5 aircraft fleet with 1 group I, 2 group II (A319/321- B738) and 2 group IV (777/787). The small number of larger buses presently in use on the U side will likely be retired or leased elsewhere.

The majority of future AA pilots will be Group II pilots.

The 330s are bought and paid for and not going anywhere. Some are less than a year old.

The 350s are going to end up being 777 replacements. Those airplanes are coming.

inline five
01-13-2015, 11:20 AM
Management already tried Airbuses down in some LA airports and they didn't work out. I would expect at least some 75's to stick around for the time being.

Having so many fleet types makes me sick personally.

MD80
E190
B737
B757/767
B777
B787
A319/320/321
A330
A350

Did I miss any?!?

The list needs to be narrowed down significantly to streamline our operations. I'd like to see an all Airbus fleet personally with some E190's for smaller markets.

That won't happen because they ordered a metric boat load of 737's and not nearly enough A330/A350's to cover the wide body flying. And we still need the 319/321 to operate in markets where you can't fill a 150 seat 737 or want the efficiency of a 187 seat 321.

Hueypilot
01-13-2015, 11:48 AM
The Group III pay issue, on the surface, seems to be a very bad deal. And in some ways it is. But let's take a step back and look at the whole picture.

Currently, international flying is done by the B777, A330, B767 and B757. Most of the long-range stuff is Group IV only, with a few 767 routes thrown in there. That international fleet is about to get up-ended as the B767 and many of the B757s retire. Some of the 757 fleet will remain in service for a while longer.

The company has B787 and A350 aircraft on order (and a handful of B777s on order). While a few of these will replace some of the older B777s, others will be replacing the 767 fleet. As the 757 fleet begins to pare down, the A321neoLR will likely replace it on the routes.

So that leaves us with the 767 and 757 positions moving to Group IV and Group II. There's a strong argument that the A321 should be a Group III aircraft, and I think pretty much everyone agrees with this. The problem is, the company has no interest in changing it, and there's really no mechanism in place right now to change it.

So where does that leave us? Voting yes or no will NOT alter the course of the fleet evolution. We WILL wind up with mostly Group IV and Group II aircraft and only a handful of Group III aircraft. If you vote no, you'll wind up with the MTA rates and Group III jobs will still gradually migrate to Groups IV and II. Looking at the TA pay, a Group II FO will make about the same as what a Group III FO would make under the MTA. And even if Delta gets better than what most are expecting (around 5-10% raise), Group III FO rates would only be marginally better than Group II FO rates (by a couple bucks per hour). Plus, some of those Group III positions will wind up being Group IV when it's all said and done. So while it's not ideal and not what it should be, it's not the end of the world either.

Voting no will not stop the A321 from taking over some of the 757 routes. Voting no will not make the economic situation better. Voting no will not somehow magically force the company make the A321 a Group III airplane.

I don't know when APA sorted out which aircraft would be in what group, but I think it was a huge mistake to arbitrarily throw the A321 into Group II just because it belonged to the A320 family. But that's all water under the bridge, and honestly at this point we're not going to see that change anytime before 2019/2020.

PurpleTurtle
01-13-2015, 03:28 PM
The Group III pay issue, on the surface, seems to be a very bad deal. And in some ways it is. But let's take a step back and look at the whole picture....


Hey, good point. The merger is already paying off at $10 Billion the first two years.. $10,000,000,000.00..

So Parker can afford to keep all his promises now!!