Jason’s post above has a lot of validity. This is a whipsaw and in this case if I were an ATI Pilot, I would have to vote no. Yes 50% is a substantial pay raise but ultimately it will be a pay decrease. They have demonstrated that they can pay more and still remain profitable. If you were 2 different companies it would be a different question.

ABX rates + is what I would need to vote yes.

Thank you Jason for a civil, well trout out lucid description of the bigger picture.

Thank you Max. I have sober moments on here as well. Cheers!

It's a concession to the company if you let them get by with a CBA that lags behind where the rest of the industry is or is headed.

The fact that it's taking so long to release the actual TA and there has been no talk of the work rules, retirement, vacation and the only sliver of info has been some cryptic details of the pay % increase should raise some major red flags over the quality of this TA.

Which ACMI has higher pay rates. Kalitta has the highest pay rates which this TA matches. ABX makes it's money on its work rules which ATI (I don't believe) will ever get. These rates are the same rates that OMNI has TA'd.

I think we still have yet to see the actual rates before assuming it matches K4. Like as been said before, we are almost a month into this announcement and nothing but a percentage range has been said.

If that percentage and K4 match is correct, it's not even in the same ballpark to what the ABX pilots have been seeking on rates alone. Bring all the other items like retirement, work rules, etc into play and it should be a non starter for ATI. Unless of course the goal is to undercut for a perceived benefit.

What’s a 767-300 cost to operate?
http://www.planestats.com/bhsw_2014sep
$7k-$10k per hour.
What difference does $10-$30 difference in pilot pay make?
Less than 1% of the operating cost. Do you really think anyone is undercutting you and winning business this way?

That being said when you are looking at a new contract does asking for $10-$30 more per hour seem outrageous?
No.

So non ATI pilots: If ATI signs a contract less than K4 rates, relax it doesn’t affect your negotiating power. Not even a little bit.

ATI pilots: If you think management can’t afford to pay you more than K4, you’re insane.

Side note for ABX and ATI. ATSG is reporting earnings on the 27th. Let’s just see how much cash they have to pay their pilots.

Additionally would it be crazy to ask for some profit sharing or have me too clauses in a contract?

Well you numbers are way too high. A 747 freighter rents for 12,000/hr on a good day. A long term contract could be half that. Keep in mind that the customer pays for fuel etc above rental rate. I think the 73 freighter might be getting 3000/hr or so with DHL. Just my guess.

That being said, it kind of wrecks your argument

So $3k per hour. Ok so paying each pilot $30 more per hour: $60/$3000= 2%. Big whoop.
ATSG has been paying ABX pilots 50% more than ATI pilots for the last 5 plus years. That’s even before overtime $$ they get from their work rules. They still got half of the new aircraft for amazon until they went on strike.
If pilot pay was the driving factor why would ATSG give any airplanes to a pilot group that costs that much more?

I've spent some time going back on the claims here.

The "scabs" at ATI who crossed a "legal" strike line? That legal strike looks to have attracted a temporary restraining order, which was successfully converted into a preliminary injunction. So we are clear, that is the exactly opposite outcome you'd want for a legal strike.

It is seriously confusing to read these kind of statements from the vote no folks. It's like the english language has been warped. The legal strike = a strike shot down by a judge. What seem likely to be raises are concessionary and the contract will begin a race to the bottom.

Why even use this approach as a basis for discussion?

V-roll had a nice post with a much clearer language.

It was a legal strike. It has never been ruled an "Illegal Strike". Just because a judge issued a restraining order does not mean it was illegal at the time.

Nor does a preliminary injunction mean it was illegal. Especially since the company and union had negotiated to resolve the issues.

If a judge can order 2 sides to negotiate using lawyers they are going to choose that option every time. Why? So their fellow lawyers get paid big $$$$$$$$.

Also, why do you think the gov't makes it take so long to finally get approval to strike under the RLA? Because if it was handled quickly the mediators and lawyers would make a lot less money and we would need less of them overall!

At the time those pilots crossed it was a LEGAL STRIKE LINE and has never been judged illegal.

If the strike had been illegal ....then the company would have sued the union for damages like AA did to their pilots.

As for the concessionary vs not concessionary debate. A pilot group could still get a large raise and the contract still be concessionary. If the pilots accept less than what other pilots make for flying the same aircraft under the same conditions then it is concessionary. That applies to both rates and rules. A contract can still be concessionary even if the rates are good but the work rules are not.

But we still don't know exactly what ATI or Omni have been offered....so how does anyone know whether it is concessionary or not.