|
Originally Posted by TransWorld
(Post 2579263)
We have had this discussion before. The wording is terribly confusing. Smarter minds than I on the agreement have stated the full wording legally means half or 25, whichever is LESS. They say your interpretation is mistaken.
As the summary APPEARS to be worded, it is half or 25, whichever is GREATER. (I wish it was worded more clearly.) Let’s say at peak retirement AA hires 160 per month (within the realm of possibility). This interpretation would mean 80 Envoy Pilots would flow every month. At that rate, pretty much every non-lifer CA would flow in a year. That would cause Envoy to completely collapse. Ask yourself, would this be what the contractual people would have agreed upon? It would not make sense. Further, if this interpretation is correct, where is the greavance / lawsuit? |
Originally Posted by bigtime209
(Post 2579271)
Several grievances have been filed. Problem is, an arbitrator won’t get around to hearing the case anytime soon.
Meanwhile, does half of all hiring at peak retirement make any sense that a realistic contract negotiator would sign up to? Would Envoy sign up to voluntary corporate suicide for themsleves? Would AA let them do that? Use your head. |
Originally Posted by TransWorld
(Post 2579263)
We have had this discussion before. The wording is terribly confusing. Smarter minds than I on the agreement have stated the full wording legally means half or 25, whichever is LESS. They say your interpretation is mistaken.
As the summary APPEARS to be worded, it is half or 25, whichever is GREATER. (I wish it was worded more clearly.) Let’s say at peak retirement AA hires 160 per month (within the realm of possibility). This interpretation would mean 80 Envoy Pilots would flow every month. At that rate, pretty much every non-lifer CA would flow in a year. That would cause Envoy to completely collapse. Ask yourself, would this be what the contractual people would have agreed upon? It would not make sense. Further, if this interpretation is correct, where is the greavance / lawsuit? |
Originally Posted by TransWorld
(Post 2579289)
I will wait with bated breath. . .
Meanwhile, does half of all hiring at peak retirement make any sense that a realistic contract negotiator would sign up to? Would Envoy sign up to voluntary corporate suicide for themsleves? Would AA let them do that? Use your head. |
Originally Posted by moon
(Post 2579319)
It wasn't voluntary, it was bargained for. They got a lot of gains for giving us that flow. They were clueless to the realities of the pilot shortage at that time so it doesn't surprise me that they wouldn't think it would be an issue. Pretty sure Pedro was on record as saying he'd park airplanes if necessary. They didn't think they would have to but they did say that.
|
That was during the time period when the company was telling us we were going to go out of business in 3 yrs and people were bouncing for a street captain gig at psa or tsa. Not because more guys were flowing out of the goodness of their hearts. Ps. My understanding is that they wanted to shrink us to the same size as psa and piedmont.
|
Here is an additional perspective. If the interpretation is half or 25 each month, which ever is GREATER was correct:
Think about the case where hiring (after a black swan event or some other decision by AA) was 10 per month. Using this interpretation, Envoy would be required to flow 25 and AA would be forced to accept that number, because it was the greater of half of 10 (flow of 5) or flow of 25. Again, use your head. That makes no sense. If, on the other hand, it was half or 25 each month, which ever is LESS was correct, Envoy would be required to flow 5. That makes good sense. |
Originally Posted by Aviatrx
(Post 2578844)
Not true. Clearly you don’t know who we are hiring. Many are prior 121 who left for corporate who are now trying to kick start their legacy carrier after many years of no interview offers. They are leaving good paying jobs to take a pay cut and work here. There are some FO laterals too, but not as many as you think. QOL and Flow are most important here and now
|
Originally Posted by AZPilotMike
(Post 2578905)
Well said and I agree with almost all of it, except the part about lifers. Envoy doesn't want lifers because like most things, they don't want to pay. I am sure the math has been done and they know exactly how long to keep you employed here so as to maximize your benefit while minimizing your overall financial impact on the company.
|
Originally Posted by moon
(Post 2579319)
It wasn't voluntary, it was bargained for. They got a lot of gains for giving us that flow. They were clueless to the realities of the pilot shortage at that time so it doesn't surprise me that they wouldn't think it would be an issue. Pretty sure Pedro was on record as saying he'd park airplanes if necessary. They didn't think they would have to but they did say that.
LCC’s aren't the only show in town anymore either. Check the ACMI’s. Several like Atlas, Omni and Kalitta are better than LCC’s in my opinion. Atlas is in the middle of getting a new CBA and should make out very well. Home basing No ready reserve No crashpads Long call from home Daily pay guarantee Business class or better on International flights over 3 hours. Omni is currently the industry highest first year pay at $113 ph. First year pay - depending what equipment and program you go into - is $87k to $108k. Upgrade under 3 years. Top step $297 ph Schedules are typically one long trip or two short ones. Last year average was 14 days away from home per month for pilots. Friends at all three like it. Their time at home is theirs, no junior manning from home. They don’t have to plan commutes, or jumpseat, they keep all the air miles and are executive platinum, they keep hotel points too. No excuse to put up with the BS anymore.... |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:44 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands