Nope. Other stuff just as important. Accepted fares, FDA Housing allowance language, 4.a.2.b., to name a few.

This LOA is a good for the company, and the bones thrown us are small. And the ability to change it easily, too sloppy.

Lets get on with the whole thing, after this passes, and I'm sure it will, we will creep along with the other sections for another 2 years...(and if we don't vote this is, I expect it to still creep along...)

I'm surprised we didn't do a 3% deal to sweeten the pot - but they didn't have to, we are so shaking in our boots the company might get this at narrow body rates...(which wasn't going to happen due to the standards set for measuring what is a wide body during the 777 payrate mess)

I'm wondering how much time we spent on this rather than the other issues also? Time wasted on negotiating bigger issues.

Whoever said we had ADD is right.

If it has to be done now? That hard sell stuff just doesn't work for me anymore. But not surprised. They have been 10 steps ahead of us on most issues, and I'm sure they are on this. Just wondering what is in the other hand? (PIBS)

But it will pass.

 

Discontent caused by extra's dropped in 757 open time getting a revision to include 767 flying soon after they're picked up? That there are more standby lines in the 757 bid pack? That some 757 reserve guys are making as much as 767 line holders because they get assigned 767 trips?

I don't think 767 guys will be all that jealous of 757 guys.

 

Do you think the MEC (via the NC) is even trying to improve the FDA Housing allowance language? Source?

Don't shoot the messenger. I think the allowance ought to go to everyone who rents/buys there, regardless of family status, but I don't think anyone important agrees with me.

 

I think the LOA offers a pretty good resolution overall to a complex issue. Basically, if you can hold a 767 bid, you get paid at 767 (WB) rates even if you wind up flying a 757 on occasion for the company's convenience. If you can't hold a 767 slot (purely a function of seniority), you get paid for what you can hold, BUT with the added kicker of being paid at 767 rates when you actually do fly a 767.

I don't see where anyone would have a legitimate gripe. If you can't hold a 767 posting as a seat award, you can't. But to be fair, if you wind up flying a 767, even if it's only one leg of a week-long pairing, you get paid at 767 rates for the whole pairing. What could be more fair than that?

I think the Negotiating Committee did a masterful job with this. All our stated goals were met, and we gave up nothing. I hope the rest of the negotiations go as well. This Reasonable Man approach seems to work.

 

Well, we did give up something I think. Just like FDAs allow the company to get much more productivity out of the pilots, this LOA allows the company to get more productivity too. They get a smaller 767 bid pack because they can essentially use the 757 guys to sit all the reserve. Thus, we need less pilots in the company to do the flying as they don't have to be inefficient in covering standby, reserve, draft, etc. When they pay only for what they use, they get a benefit.

What did we get? Essentially just confirming the 767 is a widebody paid aircraft. I don't think we got much else and I really think the company would have paid us that rate anyway or there would have definitely been an outcry. We don't pay enough attention to what our goodwill to the company is worth. If they lose that by doing something as silly as paying the 767 at a narrowbody rate, it would have worked, but with everyone up in arms, I don't think it would have been worth it to them.

Essentially this LOA seems to be a non starter for me. Since it seems to benefit the company more than the line pilot I will vote NO. And, I will also vote NO on anything they put out until PBS and non-seniority pilot flying revenue trips (management pilots like UPS) are off the table. I think we get a section 6 resolution faster when they have something they want...we trade away LOAs too easily in my opinion.

 

I agree with the above...

For the guys who say "we are ALLOWING them to be more productive", I would ask "what is the alternative?" Maybe we should complain that we are losing 3 seat planes for 2 seat planes...THAT is really efficient for the company. Should we put a minimum requirement for the number of DC-10s and 727s we keep in the fleet? There is nothing in our contracts that allow us to drive the fight on aircraft acquisitions and the corporation can buy what they feel is optimum for their needs. The challenge is capturing some of the efficiencies they gain and sharing in the rewards. The good thing is you will get a choice...you can elect to grab these rules on the 767/757 now or you can turn it back over the the arbitrators and see what we get. I was one of the loudest saying take the 777 rates to 26k. I have publicly shared my thoughts on my decision, but you guys and gals can make your own call. My take is simple...if I am a 767 I get widebody pay...period. If I am a 757 guy I get narrow body pay...unless I touch a widebody when I get widebody pay. I'm not sure what else (outside a completed CBA) I could have wanted....

 

I am likely a yes vote, I like the split bid packs as I can probably keep my relative seniority for a while longer. It is great being able to choose money or schedule and a pure junior seat certainly enhances that. I am resigned that we wont get a full CBA for a while, and I dont think there is much leverage here.

Not completely sold though, I could be talked into a no or, like some of our great political leaders, I could simply abstain and let the people whogas decide.

 

Did you read the filling of vacancies section? I think that section pretty much makes the statement you made untrue.

 

I read the LOA and I find it really weird that some guys on this board said that they read the LOA but have a different interpretation of the same piece of paper. I think it would be prudent to ask questions from people in the know, before you make a decision based on a misinterpretation of the LOA. I'm including myself in the above statement, because I maybe the one looking at it the wrong way, although I doubt it Food for thought anyway.

 

It's a good deal. We ought to take it. Get it off the table so we can fight PBS....