Pretty sure you did tell us to go find real jobs and to grow up, or something along those lines. I dont have the energy to look it up right now. You know what you said, as do others.

If you honestly think the whole deal was done, well, I dont know what to say. Yeah they spent an intense day of negotiations hammering out the last details, but that certainly didn't encompass the entire process.

I hope our MEC now comes back asking for more to be honest.

I don't have a dog in the fight, so to speak...but this stuff affects us all. I was looking at AAG's quarterly reports/press releases, does anyone know if Envoy specifically has a board and who those members are? Tough to find on the interweb...or maybe it's just me. Easy to find for AAG.

Pedro is the only representative I think. Otherwise, our executive board is AAG, we don’t get one because we are a subsidiary


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's exactly what it's looking like. Having been on the executive side of things in another industry, this is going to be tough with almost no leverage realistically. "Wholly Owned" is just that....wholly owned. AAG's board (or insert any parent in any industry) is the decision maker. I sure hope that the negotiators knew full well that they were not talking to the guys that could say yea or nay.

Compensation, budgets, bonuses, high value contracts, everything has to be presented to the board for final approval. The subsidiary's executive team has little say so other than making the recommendation to the board. If you've ever been in the board meeting of a publicly traded company..those can go off the rails quickly in a direction you have little control over.

What a stupid argument.

If the company sends negotiators that negotiate poorly, it's the company's (managements) problem. Period. If Envoy were to sign a contract with Embraer (or any outside company) and the board tried to reneg, they would get their a**** sued off.

If the company couldn't negotiate the terms they did, then they shouldn't have. It's not the union's fault that the company got outfoxed.

They signed an agreement, and they need to be held to it.

Kinda like that 1 billion dollar agreement we just signed with GE. Hope GE doesnt get screwed like we did.

It's actually not an argument, but i can see you have a lot of passion around it.

What they signed was an "Agreement in Principle"....by definition that is not a contract. It's not binding and anyone working at that level should know that. Knife to a gunfight.

If you re-read what the union rep wrote..it's stated clearly that they knew what they were signing and it was not a done deal.


That last sentence represents in my experience several more weeks of work, and further "ironing out" that can be a bare knuckles fight.

You are correct with everything but the last part. There was never a chance to work out contractual language. It was just flat rejected before it ever got to that point.

No no no, during the bankruptcy they AAG made it perfectly clear, Envoy negotiates with who group sends.... be it Bartle & Pappi, Glass, or on the rare occasion Pedro, or Pedro and another AAG Officer.
If they agreed to something, then they had authority to in advance.

Not necessarily... It sounds to me like Envoy was ultimately offered the same as what PSA and Piedmont were. And it sounds like Envoy ALPA wanted more (which is great, good on you and I would of hoped you got it because what your union negotiated was far and above what PSA and Piedmont got). So Envoy ALPA and Envoy management discussed it, negotiated, and came to an AIP. Then when Envoy management went back to AAG for what they thought would be approval they basically said, “No the deal was for pay rates. You have no authority to negotiate anything outside of what we said you could”.

So to me, an outsider, it would seem that your management dropped the ball here. Why exactly they would agree to something without first running it by their own bosses is beyond me. Perhaps it was simply a negotiating tactic to make it clear that AAG was offering nothing but pay rates? But that doesn’t make sense. Why go through all the effort at all? The only thing that really makes sense is that they completely bungled this opportunity.

I’m sure that will be their claim, but as one who was actually involved in those negotiation 2013-2016 I can say that the people they sent had authority to agree. If it was out of bounds they’d break and reschedule to get approval.
I know for a fact that’s accurate. I did the NY base closure LOA after a few days of back and forth, it ended up getting done in about 45 minutes of back and forth between their lawyers and ours. Finally our lawyers said they weren’t going back in to demand more and that I’d have to do it myself. I did. (FO Rep came with me) In 15 minutes I got everything I asked for including A1 travel to work, pay protected removals from un commutable trips, unlimited hotels and a stack of other things.
I heard later that Group wasn’t pleased, and that the A1 travel to/from work caused them huge problems with every other work group. They hated every part of that LOA but their negotiators had agreed to it.
If they send somebody, they have authority to deal. They may end up unemployed afterwards, but they have the authority. It’s a huge “failure to bargain in good faith” lawsuit otherwise..... if they can’t approve, they break and get permission.

Who ever was negotiating for mgt had aag authority, they were instructed on the boundaries that limited their negotiation authority, so I dont believe envoy went beyond what aag instructed. Envoy mgt has no balls to go against aag, so I dont believe their excuse.
It's just drag it out any way to see if the mec comes back with a lower request. Mec should not give up what was already agreed to. Mec should do a media blitz.

So what’s the purpose for what happened here at Envoy? After the tens of millions they’ve been investing in all 3 WOs these past few years why now do this? If it was intentional and not bumbling then what is the goal? They need no negotiating leverage because they already have leverage. All they do is stand to lose by not increasing compensation at one WO while the other 2 enjoy raises.

Arrogance and ignorance on the part of mgmt is the only explanation I can come up with. I don’t think they realized just how royally ****ed the pilot group would get over this betrayal.

As I started in a previous post. You are dealing with the most unethical, egotistical, abusive, corrupt, unscrupulous management team to ever lead a corporation. There is a delusional reason for everything they do. They do not sign an AIP without approval. I wouldn’t be surprised to see AAG just testing to see just how far they can push before getting sued.
It’s the same with their bargaining. They write language that later they’ll say means something other than what you thought. They’ll then use the arbitration process to push the CBA even a little farther. It’s all a game to them.

You mean BetrAAyed.... we had those stickers and gifs back when they demanded a second round of concessions after getting the exact bankruptcy contract they claimed in writing was needed to re-fleet Eagle with E175’s....

When an irate customer won't stop yelling at a CSR, the CSR will always blame some faceless manager that the customer can't talk with. Works 90% of the time.

Here, Envoy blamed AAG and we can't talk to them. It's a cop out. Stand tall, don't budge, and they will come around. They have too.

Mec should go public about the aip fiasco,

Well...they did issue a comm about it. It's not really a secret...

Well let me be more precise, a media blitz is what they should do. Emailing me all the time does nothing to squeeze mgt.

Does “determine our next steps in this process” translate to “we’re at a dead end and don’t really know what to do next”?

Are we still in a negotiation standpoint or did company walkout?

I can't answer this with fact. But walking away is a negotiation tactic. Talks are likely ceased at this point as the company is hoping to sweat the union out. However, I believe they miscalculated on this as the pilot group has unified rather than where at PDT, where they had divided into hold out for QOL vs take the money and fix problems later.

I think we ought to be prepared for several months to go by before we see a fix unless this hits the news. It's going to be bloody.

^^This 100%

The 20 FB-active pilots have unified, but it's not widespread. I just flew a trip with a CA who bragged about how much fuel he saves every single trip. "We will shut down the APU for 10 minutes, that saves us 30 pounds of fuel".
Actual quote.

The captains need some balls. Right now, some of them don't seem to have any. Stop blaming the new hires. The problem is way more senior than that.

I usually am in agreement with your posts, just a heads up you’re about to get burned by senior captains in 3...2..1....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are 2 or 3 senior captains here. Most of the posters here (who are captains) are 2014-2016 hires. Few exceptions, but not many.

For them, it's easy to blame new hires. They forget the double-digit seniority lifers, who either don't care, or are busy re-flying every flight on their flight simulator to see if they could've saved a bit more fuel than they did. Or are taking videos to see how close to the second they can time the second engine start to 2 minutes from takeoff.

Meanwhile, they will negotiate, they will figure out what happened with management, and they will come back with a new deal. And I can almost guarantee it includes backpay with the original date.
The latest MEC email suggests the same. Do your job, wait, and stop suggesting illegal work actions in public forums.

You're saying don't do illegal job actions and in the same breath imply that captains have no balls because they won't change the way they fly to burn more fuel. Are you confused?

Lifers don’t give a damn about fuel. I’ve only ever had lifers demand APU on for t/o and landing to mitigate pressure bumps lol

I 100% know which captain this is. lol. He is “interesting” to say the least.

This isn’t a thing if you have a good attorney reviewing a contract. Either it’s correct or you failed to properly define the terms. Anything left open is just that. Pilots crack me up when they talk about faith and their fee fees about what should happen, the reason you have a contract is to lock down exactly what all of those things mean. If it’s not in the words of the contract it doesn’t exist. I don’t know what kind of cut rate bumbler attorney we have, but if they signed off on the current contract we should no longer retain their services.

We’ve had the same guy for something like 20 years.

And one crappy contract after another...what was the definition of insanity?

Save 30 pounds from the apu to offset the lazy rampers wasting thousands of gallons a day by not doing their jobs.

That's rich.

Wanna bet it’s a thing regardless of who or how carefully they wrote it? Ask somebody about 12.E.1. Sometime. Or how the 824 came into existence, or how the protected pilot group came into existence. They will argue over the meaning of the word “is.”

I used to run it gate to 10,000 and 10,000 to the gate when landing if the ATIS said heavy bird activity at the airport. Popping an engine is bad enough, but dealing with EDL shutting crap off, or if both got wiped out a sudden electrical emergency onto standby gauges just didn’t work for me. APU on for safety.

Let him do it and then when you start it back up ask him if he knows what the company pays each time you hit the start button on that leased APU.

Oh they joy of flying with the mullet. I wonder how he’s doing on the heavy? Terrorizing young and impressionable cadets no doubt.

Right if you say so. We are not here to hold anyones hand, they got a lot of bonus money, time to grow up. Besides apu use is captains choice on or off not f/o's unless mel instructed on or off. If thats your biggest problem here, you have issues

This was intentional. ENY mgt. knows better than to "exceed their authority." Good luck- keep fighting the good fight.