Hetman

Ayes: 74
Nays: 140


Most recent seniority list has 355 names. 214 of 355 voted: 60% participation

marshal

Not all of the 355 could vote since you had to be a member in good standing as of July 31st. I would be that participation was much higher when you count only those that were allowed to vote.

Hetman

True. But even if 100% of those eligible voted, that means only 60% of the pilots cared enough to obtain/maintain standing. I also recall some angst that the back-dues necessary to reinstate standing were artificially low.

I saw the strike vote came in at 95% in favor, but nowhere did the announcement say the participation level. A strike vote has two parts. In my experience, you send a message with the participation level as well as the result. I find the silence regarding the former to be quite loud. Even assuming the same 60% participation (which is a pretty big assumption) 95% of 60% is only 57% in favor of the strike.

In any case, I am hopeful that the message of the 2-1 margin against the TA was heard equally loudly by the negotiating committee as well as the company.

RJtrashPilot

60% of the time it works 100% of the time.

ATCsaidDoWhat

Oh you can BET it was heard loud and clear by management. They already had the letter to the NMB waiting for the vote and will be only too happy to go back to mediation...because now there can't be a strike.

Turning down some pretty good scope, a 40% pay raise in a first contract and now you've set yourself up for a couple of YEARS of mediation and remaining "at will" employees with no protections....pure genius.

Did you guys really give up gateway travel and a GUARANTEED plane ticket to work in favor of jumpseating to work?

I'd love to hear your fallback plan for when the company starts moving assets and give you a pay cut because the economy is in the crapper. Remember, it's not what they make...it's what they are willing to pay...

SVA402

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

stuart716

You sound like someone who is in management trying to spread fear around the pilot group.

RJtrashPilot

I'm going to make a brief, futile attempt to educate you.

I will freely admit and fully disclose that I am the FNG on the block here at Omni; and after first reading the TA I thought it was a good deal (mostly because of the "pay raise"), however after some thought and discussion with my fellow pilots and after dissecting the TA, I quickly saw it for the heaping mound of guano that it was.

The 40% pay raise that you point out was an artifical one and not everyone would have received 40%. Mostly the 40% hike came at the lower end of the pay scale.

The "gateway travel" concept proposed in the TA was worse than what we have now with traditional home basing. Currently, we designate one airport to be home based out of and we have what you call a "GUARANTEED plane ticket to work". With the TA, we would have been responsible for any airport within 120 miles of where we live -- for me that would make 6 airports. So the drive distance (fuel, time, mileage, wear and tear on my car) and airport parking would negate the pay raise. This would have been a concession.

The extra pay isn't everything. Essentially, zero quality of life issues were fixed and in some instances, QOL worsened. For instance, the company could fly us back home on our first day off with no pay and without having that day off restored. If a pilot had a spilt line, that would mean potentially two days off gone. Currently, we would receive extra pay for travelling on a day off. This, again, was a concession and would negate the pay raise.

There were zero trip/duty rigs. At a minimum, most pilots that I spoke to here wanted to see a min day guarantee.

The TA was also riddled with lots of language that was unenforceable, such as "can" or "may" or "the company will make best efforts...".

If you're going to be a blowhard, go elsewhere. When you can't speak intelligently about a subject, just keep drinking your Pabst. This way your lack of knowledge doesn't become apparent.

Hetman

I saw where you were flinging poo at the Frontier guys over on that other thread (one of the hundreds) and holding up the Omni TA as an example. I came close to PM'ing you not to be so quick about it but decided to let that play out on its own. I don't know if your apparent indignation at the 2-1 defeat of this TA is related to that.

In any case, it does not appear you have looked in depth at this TA or made the comparison with the current "at will" work rules as have the pilots who would have actually had to work under it for five years minimum.

ATCsaidDoWhat

Hetman, the last thing I am is management as asserted by others here. I do admit to having some pretty good contacts in the business on both sides of the fence, even though I freely admit to being 110% trade unionist.

I am also a realist who has dealt with the NMB several times in the past and have a good handle on their mindset. And I have a pretty darn good Rolodex. The current conditions remain in force as long as the company wants them to, the NMB and the subsection you reference have no relevance. If you do not have a contract, there is no status quo provision to apply. You might want to research the Williams case that went to the Supreme Court where the court ruled that a union group that does not yet have a contract is not entitled to the status quo provision.

Now, that doesn't mean the union won't fight any changes. It's just that there is no legal framework to stand on.

In regards to FAPA; personally I have a problem with any group that goes out and tries to back door a deal to cut someone elses throat or career as they did with their SLI proposal, and then stand there and wrap themselves in the flag while trashing the pilots of the airline that bought them. They conveniently forget that F9 was in the can through no fault of the RAH pilots. If they had the money then THEY should have bought the airline. But they didn't, BB bought it and he's no saint. So they (no all, but many) have taken to trashing the pilots and the IBT to cover up the shortcomings of their own leadership's actions. Actions that were designed to carve out a special deal and instead set a new, lower bar for management to point at and tell everyone else and point to that as the "new industry standard."

Personally, I want nothing but the best for the Omni pilots. They have endured more than enough. I also understand the difference and indeed the distance between realistic and unrealistic first contract expectations. The important thing is to get what you can and get the legal protections that cover your back while you work to improve on the contract during it's term and work on global issues to tee up for the second contract, that include closing the loopholes of the first one.

It's difficult to look at "mature" contracts that others have and make more with. You have to remember that those contracts have gone through decades of negotiations, in some cases back to the 1940's and 50's to get where they are today. Does that mean Omni should wait that long? Of course not. It also means that if you are moving forward, then move. Every step forward now and during the life of the contract, regardless of how small, builds on the ability for even greater gains in the next one.

That's what got missed. And with management having the upper hand until an agreement is reached, that's not a good thing.