Dutch80

76flyer, thank you for your response, as I must confess, I haven’t done much union work or am otherwise familiar with section 6. On my defense, I have limited spare time ant it goes to reading Ops Sceps, FCOM and such. But I will try to learn about section 6.

I must take a little exemption however with your suggestion that “ new guys should talk less and listen more” after all the union collects as much money from us new guys as it does from everyone else.
And while in the subject of “new guys”
I don’t know what method 450 utilized to determine that I am a new guy and pronounced me so with great finality.
I’m beginning to think sometimes 450 speaks without accurate command of the facts. But I digress.

Back on point, is not that I don’t trust the NC but as the late President Reagan used to say “Trust but Verify”.
So when the union says that holes as wide as the Grand Canyon exist, I would expect them to be able to specifically point to them. Because there is difference between faith and blind faith, you know what I mean?

So with the full understanding that I am repeating myself,
Can the Union clearly define the reasons why they refuse to allow the current proposal to be evaluated by the membership ?
Are those reasons enough, in the eyes of the OMNI pilots, to delay implementation of what otherwise is a quantum improvement to our current CBA ?
So looking back at your original statement, yes I have asked this question multiple times and no, I haven’t gotten a single definitive answer weather one that I like or not.

Finally you stated “Any ExCo and/or NC that sends something out for a vote that doesn't pass or fail by a big number has failed to do their job.”
I submit, that in its present form this would pass, perhaps by a considerable margin, although admittedly that’s just my opinion.
Luckily there is an sure fire way to find out. Isn’t there ?

BigfootCapo

I submit, that in its present form this would pass, perhaps by a considerable margin, although admittedly that’s just my opinion.
Luckily there is an sure fire way to find out. Isn’t there ?[/QUOTE]


We need to be exactly on par with the rest of the industry, in every aspect (not only pay scale). That is where this campaign is headed. Until such is agreed upon by both parties, there is nothing to consider much less vote on. All due respect, not sure what is so difficult to understand there by so many on this forum.

Dubiousbrother

Bigfoot - Regarding contract terms, could you provide the name of specific airline(s) that meet your definition of "On par with the Industry?

out of curiosity, do you work for Omni?

maxjet

Did DW say that he wil not allow the Omni Pilots to vote on a contract that “Lowers the bar” by being extendable to 20days? I have been told that he has. If he has there is your answer.

The example with K4 was that he held up our voting on the TA because of the proposed 24 hour max duty day for a double crew. It took almost an act of Congress (Well, an act of the NLRB), and a special hearing, which DW was told not to attend, to finally get the ability to vote. I figure I lost 40-50k while this crap went on solely to benefit the Atlas negotiations. Let me be very clear. I wish Atlas Pilots the best they can get. I wish DW other things, none of which are nice.

BTW arbitration award came in regarding our max double crew duty day a few days ago. Guess what it was......24 hours.

RedWhiteAndBlue

Maxjet gets it!

“Atlas” is screwing Omni. Nothing could be clearer. I hope all Omni pilots like getting screwed. Because we are.

And there is NOTHING that can be done to change it. It appears that Maxjet has lived it.

Enjoy the reality ride folks. This isn’t changing anytime soon.

stickwiggler

We need to be exactly on par with the rest of the industry, in every aspect (not only pay scale). That is where this campaign is headed. Until such is agreed upon by both parties, there is nothing to consider much less vote on. All due respect, not sure what is so difficult to understand there by so many on this forum.[/QUOTE]


Bigfoot (in mouth),

So, you're confused on why people are advocating to accept the current proposal in principle and go ahead and hammer out language vs trying to achieve your undefinable "industry standard contract"?

Well, several people have explained that in no uncertain terms, you're just choosing not to listen.

The problem is, what is an "industry standard contract" anyway?

Are you suggesting that we wait until Omni ups their offer to match Delta pay?

Should we continue to step over good money and increased contract benefits so we can hold out for American's pension?

I mean, you're the one who's talking about industry standards...

Let me guess, you're not suggesting THESE standards... you're just suggesting that the standard be raised to YOUR DEFINITION of what "industry standard" is.

There are two glaring facts:

1. There is no such thing as industry standard.

Every airline has a different contract and people are always trying to play one up on someone else.

To lose 10, 50 or 100k dollars just to say "we have the best contract" for a month or two is just silly--
Especially considering the fact that Omni will NEVER be able to match legacy pay.

Our business model and it's ability to generate revenue is simply smaller.
The average Omni pilot flies 34 hrs/mo. Pilots at other carriers often work twice that.

Now, if you work at Atlas and you believe that the success of your contract is contingent upon what we get, then of course it makes sense for you to advocate for us to hold out. That cost you nothing.

2. Omni is unique in this industry. There used to be other carriers who did the same thing as we do but they're all out of business now. To compare us to larger carriers, freight operators with scheduled service is just apples and oranges.

If that's what you want, i hear their hiring. God speed.

You and your ilk keep saying there is nothing to vote on. Jesus, this gets old.

I, and many others, who have been through several union contract negotiations are completely familiar with the process.

No one is advocating to vote on a proposal!!!

The people who are advocating for "contract now" are simply suggesting that we accept the proposal in theory and THEN hammer out the language.

It's fine if you disagree with that. You want to hold out for whatever in the hell you consider "industry standard" then great. You'll get your vote and i guess we can put you down for a "NO".

To make it crystal clear for you, the people advocating for "contract now" believe that the majority of pilots would vote YES and that our wishes as a pilot group are being usurped by the minority.
Why? one might ask?

I don't know. The arguments have all been made here;

*1224 is preventing it because they are looking out for their $ cow (Atlas) interests at our expense.

*Ego. Some people are so butt hurt that they are looking for revenge.

* Some truly believe Omni can afford it (even though not one of us has a clue about how much $ this place makes).

For me, none of that matters. I look at the cost/benefit analysis of where the offer is, what some want to hold out for and how much it will cost us. This decision is pure math for many of us.

It's really not that hard to understand.

JohnBurke

Of curiosity: Planejobs.com is advertising or Omni FO's. The ad opens listing an hourly of 113.02, with a 74 hour guarantee, then a little farther down the page lists 70.70, with a 60 hour guarantee. It appears that the opening number is closer to 2nd year captain pay, but it's an FO ad. Is the larger number a typo, a misleading ad, or a representation of an offer by Omni?

Edit--I see the same information on the company web site, but including a qualification "Company proposed benefits for the new Contract Bargaining Agreement (CBA)."

Dubiousbrother

113.02 1st year FO pay is from the offer the company proposed a few months ago.
70.70 is current 1st year FO pay with 60 hour guarantee.

I don't know about the 74 hour guarantee. that doesn't sound correct. Last I saw, the latest proposal was 64 hour guarantee.

Rolloutflare

Food for thought. I just got an email from a 6 month FO at Kalitta (Not former Omni). His December paycheck is going to be $15K with 15 days on the road (Now he could be lying) Yes that is their busy period, but that's still better than a 12 year captain at Omni.

Dutch80

Of course the obvious answers is that, It wouldn’t be if we had adopted the current company proposal. But who’s keeping score.

Besides a poster above reminded us that “is not just about the money”, but other goals that “this campaign is headed for”.

I wish the Union would, once and for all, define precisely what those goals are. So far I’ve heard about better access to AIMS, and some other rather vague talking points, but nothing that should hinder turning the company proposal into an actionable agreement

So far I have been reluctant to embrace the persistent notion that Atlas and someone named DW, are behind this boondoggle, but absent any clear and specific communication from the Union, we may have to accept that the Omni pilots are being used and the puppet master is someone outside of the Omni group.