|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1899166)
How should I feel? I have made no comments about the TA other then ask for specifics on rumors posted. My first look is that we will gain jobs on the work rule side. I don't like the payrates but if you end up with the NMB they are at the top of the industry.
Many of the rumors posted here did not come to pass. No pay banding, no third party sick verification, no reduction in sick hours, no increase in training freeze except in base moves by a new hire. No change in FO drops for training. There are a bunch of quality of life improvements and many areas of past complaints have been addressed. In total those items have significant value. There are negatives. The obvious is the potential 5.7% reduction in profit sharing if PTEX is above 6 billion. This year will however be only the second time in history that has happened. The sick verification requirement change I don't like. I can live with the RJ changes given its a net reduction and the 2 for 1 gain at the mainline. I don't fully understand the switch to block hours from EASK but the new compliance periods are a big improvement. Overall I don't like the payrates but can live with the rest. I had to vote today I would vote no because of the payrates. I will attend the road shows and read what I can. I need to see the costed values in all the work rule changes. We will all get one vote. I suspect this will be a very close vote. |
Originally Posted by Herkflyr
(Post 1899164)
I felt the same way about the nickel per diem increase. I think they spent more money on the ink to print the digits of "$0.05" than will be in our paycheck.
|
Anyone else notice that after opening for it, we still weren't able to get Seattle listed as a hub?
|
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1899161)
Yeah, taking LCA trips more than likely means taking the good trips away from FOs. It totally smashes bidding.
It's punitive. 1. Less 'good' trips for F/O's to bid 2. Less F/O's required 3. 75% less trip drops for flying with LCA's, to pick up another trip and get paid for both. |
Payrates:
21.5% compounded over 3 years 3.5% margin + PS on AA rates 45.4% compounded over 6 years counting C2012 Satisfied with this section DC fund goes to 16% 1/17 Would rather have seen the extra 1% in fixed pay rates. Not a deal killer. Per diem increase, vacation pay, CQ pay, etc Yawn. Money could be utilized anywhere within the contract. Company commits to 100 seat jet More RJ reductions via 2:1 gearing. 2 100 seaters allow 1 additional 70 or 76 seat jet. DCI shrinks to 425 from 450. Total seats also decline by 2%. DCI block hour ratio enhanced from 1.35 to 1.81. Nothing to hate here. More transferal of flying from DCI to mainline. Jobs=airframes. This mechanism works great for C2012 and continues. Joint Venture Scope Needs more study Reroute improvements No issues. Sick Leave No issues. I can verify beyond 80 hours instead of 100. Need some clarification whether process remains the same, i.e. pre-emptive verification if pilot desires, etc. The rest is fluff and stuff. Impression: Solid industry leading contract. I would have preferred more monetization of profit sharing into fixed rates. But, if this board is any indication, the pilot group likely wants to carry the risk associated with PS. RA wants us to lead the industry in pay rates. He also knows the PS is an expense, contrary to what I read here. It is profit that could go to capital expenditures or to shareholders. If he is on the hook to pay us, it's an expense. We clearly wanted to retain PS and I bet he wants to keep it in place as well in order to provide motivation. He is going to count PS as part of total compensation, as he should. Adding our profit sharing to the 3.5% margin on AA, we will be well ahead of AA in good years and firmly ahead on breakeven or worse years. RJ flying transfer to mainline continues. I'll vote for it if it makes it through the MEC Ratified 60% |
Q's for those there
I Know they aren't supposed to vote till tomm, is that still gonna be true?
What is the mood of the reps? Outraged, passive, etc? Just trying to gauge if this turd will float... Are they having an open honest debate? And who is grilling the negotiators/MEC over this? Thx. |
Originally Posted by Vikz09
(Post 1899137)
Paid for by a massive reduction in PS. Change from 20% above 2.5 billion to 10% up to 6 billion. That's a loss of 10%. That will end up being a LOT of money lost in PS. I am quoting the Donatelli. " We heard you load and clear regarding your desire to keep PS" apparently not load enough! Pure BS
Now as well, 75% of trips bid by LCA will not be available to bid by FO's. Apparently, my seniority to bid commutable trips will be affected by what the LCA bid. Hopefully, they all live in base and bid crappy trips on holidays. Alpa, making sure we don't listen to our pilots needs since the year 2000. |
Originally Posted by Whidbey
(Post 1899174)
Anyone else notice that after opening for it, we still weren't able to get Seattle listed as a hub?
How in the HECK can they say, with a straight face, that SEA is not a Hub, when Richard has said in many public interviews that SEA IS OUR NEW PACIFIC HUB!!?? |
I'm thinking those in their last three years will vote yes for the instant raise and anyone in the bottom 20% will vote yes for the new airplanes. If that were to hold true, the swing votes are middle seniority pilots who don't care about RJ's at mainline and are not under any time pressure when it comes to rates. This group of pilots is also the group that will be affected most by the change to OE trips.
Anyone agree? |
Originally Posted by SharpestTool
(Post 1899177)
Payrates:
21.5% compounded over 3 years 3.5% margin + PS on AA rates 45.4% compounded over 6 years counting C2012 Satisfied with this section DC fund goes to 16% 1/17 Would rather have seen the extra 1% in fixed pay rates. Not a deal killer. Per diem increase, vacation pay, CQ pay, etc Yawn. Money could be utilized anywhere within the contract. Company commits to 100 seat jet More RJ reductions via 2:1 gearing. 2 100 seaters allow 1 additional 70 or 76 seat jet. DCI shrinks to 425 from 450. Total seats also decline by 2%. DCI block hour ratio enhanced from 1.35 to 1.81. Nothing to hate here. More transferal of flying from DCI to mainline. Jobs=airframes. This mechanism works great for C2012 and continues. Joint Venture Scope Needs more study Reroute improvements No issues. Sick Leave No issues. I can verify beyond 80 hours instead of 100. Need some clarification whether process remains the same, i.e. pre-emptive verification if pilot desires, etc. The rest is fluff and stuff. Impression: Solid industry leading contract. I would have preferred more monetization of profit sharing into fixed rates. But, if this board is any indication, the pilot group likely wants to carry the risk associated with PS. RA wants us to lead the industry in pay rates. He also knows the PS is an expense, contrary to what I read here. It is profit that could go to capital expenditures or to shareholders. If he is on the hook to pay us, it's an expense. We clearly wanted to retain PS and I bet he wants to keep it in place as well in order to provide motivation. He is going to count PS as part of total compensation, as he should. Adding our profit sharing to the 3.5% margin on AA, we will be well ahead of AA in good years and firmly ahead on breakeven or worse years. RJ flying transfer to mainline continues. I'll vote for it if it makes it through the MEC Ratified 60% |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:29 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands