|
Originally Posted by eaglefly
(Post 1759713)
Not a vary smart plan if it is. The risk is what if attrition exceeds the rate at which they can replace the flying. If it does, they have to relinquish market share to competitors that is very difficult to regain.
Isn't there a no furlough clause at Envoy ? Most of the pilots leaving in uncontrolled fashion (to outside carriers) aren't outside the proposed 12/4 caps, so little to be gained there. No, I think Envoy is essentially become a rudderless ship loaded with pilots looking for a life raft. The majority who stick it out are all senior topped out 18-year lifers like RJ pilot and then what have they got left ? A carrier that will HAVE to be subject to consolidation to reset the remaining lifers compensation (if they want to stay). Right now, they've just decided to burn the furniture to heat the house until it's time to torch it for the insurance (asset acquisition with an offer of employment, a'la TWA). Honest question. Out of curiosity what makes you think there is any similarity between asset acquisition of Envoy and TWA? Or am I not understanding correct? Because Envoy does not own the airplanes nor any other asset, it's owned already by AAG. Whereas TWA was its own separate company at the time of AMR acquisition. Therefore if AAG wanted to close up Envoy Flight Ops there is really not a whole lot to prohibit it, and it would not be necessary to offer employment for those pilots left if they didn't want to. I'm not implying a shutdown will or will not happen, but curious how you came to that conclusion relating Envoy to TWA, unless I'm not understanding your statement. |
Originally Posted by SkylineAviation
(Post 1759776)
[/B]
Honest question. Out of curiosity what makes you think there is any similarity between asset acquisition of Envoy and TWA? Or am I not understanding correct? Because Envoy does not own the airplanes nor any other asset, it's owned already by AAG. Whereas TWA was its own separate company at the time of AMR acquisition. Therefore if AAG wanted to close up Envoy Flight Ops there is really not a whole lot to prohibit it, and it would not be necessary to offer employment for those pilots left if they didn't want to. I'm not implying a shutdown will or will not happen, but curious how you came to that conclusion relating Envoy to TWA, unless I'm not understanding your statement. No. But Envoy does have assets besides aircraft (including labor) which could be acquired by another entity or "absorbed" by another wholly-owned operation that has its own management and assets. AAG is still as much of a corporate shell game as it was when Arpey ran it and it was AMR. As pilots bail from Envoy including flowing to AA and it becomes smaller, its percentage of "topped out" senior pilots (in both seats) increases and in effect, it becomes even MORE uncompetitive from a labor cost standpoint. That means ultimately, SOMETHING has to give to "reset" those remaining pilots (and likely even F/A's) to the equivalent of lower scale. Thus, at some point in the fairly near future, whenever the trigger is pulled on whatever "transaction" occurs involving Envoy, those high cost employees will have to accept new employment at substantially reduced rates if they want the opportunity to transfer via an "offer of employment". Those who do would likely face an arbitrated seniority process as well. Those who don't ? Well, they'll either get a "we wish you well in your future endeavors" statement as they exit or like the other poster stated, they'll not get so much as a "harrumph" in acknowledgement for perhaps decades of loyal service. Don't expect much from Envoy going forward no matter what Glass waves in front of your face. This is what those here advocating dropping to their knees either fail to or refuse to understand (although a couple have deliberately ulterior motives). Expecting anything good by giving more concessions at this point is essentially milking a dead cow. :cool: |
Originally Posted by eaglefly
(Post 1759841)
Mimic the TWA transaction ?
No. But Envoy does have assets besides aircraft (including labor) which could be acquired by another entity or "absorbed" by another wholly-owned operation that has its own management and assets. AAG is still as much of a corporate shell game as it was when Arpey ran it and it was AMR. As pilots bail from Envoy including flowing to AA and it becomes smaller, its percentage of "topped out" senior pilots (in both seats) increases and in effect, it becomes even MORE uncompetitive from a labor cost standpoint. That means ultimately, SOMETHING has to give to "reset" those remaining pilots (and likely even F/A's) to the equivalent of lower scale. Thus, at some point in the fairly near future, whenever the trigger is pulled on whatever "transaction" occurs involving Envoy, those high cost employees will have to accept new employment at substantially reduced rates if they want the opportunity to transfer via an "offer of employment". Those who do would likely face an arbitrated seniority process as well. Those who don't ? Well, they'll either get a "we wish you well in your future endeavors" statement as they exit or like the other poster stated, they'll not get so much as a "harrumph" in acknowledgement for perhaps decades of loyal service. Don't expect much from Envoy going forward no matter what Glass waves in front of your face. This is what those here advocating dropping to their knees either fail to or refuse to understand (although a couple have deliberately ulterior motives). Expecting anything good by giving more concessions at this point is essentially milking a dead cow. :cool: |
Originally Posted by snippercr
(Post 1759587)
I hate to ask but... PSA, Compass or Mesa?
|
Good for you!
|
Originally Posted by Std Deviation
(Post 1760253)
JetBlue...
|
Originally Posted by rickt86
(Post 1760583)
I need a dart ;)
Nonstick cooking spray, for greasing 1 1/2 cups all-purpose flour 2 teaspoons House Seasoning, recipe follows Eight 4-ounce boneless, skinless chicken breasts, pounded 1 1/2 cups low-fat buttermilk 3 tablespoons olive oil 1 1/2 teaspoons cornstarch One 14-ounce can reduced-sodium chicken broth 1/4 cup sliced Vidalia onion 1/2 cup reduced-fat 1-percent milk 1/4 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper 2 green onions, chopped House Seasoning 1 cup kosher salt 1/4 cup garlic powder 1/4 cup ground black pepper Directions Preheat the oven to 350 degrees F. Spray a baking sheet with nonstick cooking spray. Mix together the flour and 1 teaspoon of the House Seasoning in a small bowl. Sprinkle the chicken with the remaining 1 teaspoon House Seasoning. Pour the buttermilk into a shallow dish. Dredge the chicken in the buttermilk, followed by the flour. Heat 2 tablespoons of the oil in a heavy nonstick skillet over medium-high heat. Add half of the chicken breasts to the hot oil and cook until both sides are browned, about 3 minutes per side, and then transfer to the baking sheet. Repeat with the remaining chicken breasts. Transfer the baking sheet to the oven and bake until the chicken is cooked through, about 10 minutes. Whisk together the cornstarch and 1/4 cup chicken broth until dissolved. Set aside. To make the gravy , add the remaining 1 tablespoon oil to the same skillet and heat over medium heat. Add the onions and saute until translucent, about 2 minutes. Add the remaining chicken broth, scrape the pan drippings with a wooden spoon, raise the heat to medium-high and cook until the mixture begins to bubble, about 2 minutes. Stir in the dissolved cornstarch to incorporate. Bring to a simmer and continue to cook until the mixture thickens, 4 to 5 minutes. Stir in the milk and black pepper and continue cooking over medium-high heat until thickened, 5 minutes longer. Remove the chicken from the oven and top each piece with 4 teaspoons of the gravy. Sprinkle with the chopped green onions. Mix together the salt, garlic powder and pepper. |
Man I'm hungry again...
|
I am with you psi
|
Even the flight attendants at American have more balls than PSA and PDT pilots...which is anatomically impossible in a lot of cases :D...voted no too
|
dropping certain eagle/envoy markets should have been expected anyway - if nothing else for frequency/capacity reasons
|
So the company ended talks, and are now offering a take-it-or-leave-it last last last last and final offer that the MEC is going to vote on this week...? And either way we are essentially http://www.pinbax.com/items/Csk-Screw.gif
Looks like it will be a fairly close vote as to whether it goes to the pilots or not. And either way we lose. Anyone have a good chocolate pudding recipe? |
Was the take it or leave it worse then PSA and PDT's??
|
Who the hell is leaking this junk?
|
Glass and his pupets
|
They want us to give into concessions and not give us a fleet plan? Only a promise of planes? Yeah, **** that.
|
See what promises not printed on paper got us this time? Only a moron would expect us to sign anything that doesn't contain language stating those promises.
Once it's on paper, it's not a promise. It's a contract. |
Originally Posted by billyho
(Post 1761178)
Was the take it or leave it worse then PSA and PDT's??
|
Originally Posted by eaglefly
(Post 1759713)
Isn't there a no furlough clause at Envoy ?
Furloughing is costly and that's what is stopping Envoy from furloughing. Not because they can't, but because it's there are cheaper methods of reducing a pilot group. Fear and intimidation such as saying the airline will be shut down or turned into a ground operation, promises to give away all the 70 seat aircraft and shrinking the airline into nothing by slowly retiring all 50-seaters and by closing bases one by one until there are none. |
Originally Posted by Romulus
(Post 1761688)
Yes they do, but it's worth less than the paper it is written on.
Furloughing is costly and that's what is stopping Envoy from furloughing. Not because they can't, but because it's there are cheaper methods of reducing a pilot group. Fear and intimidation such as saying the airline will be shut down or turned into a ground operation, promises to give away all the 70 seat aircraft and shrinking the airline into nothing by slowly retiring all 50-seaters and by closing bases one by one until there are none. The other company can't simply absorb anything thrown at it either. Base closings are for strategic reasons, but a company may try to intimidate their employees by making these threats. Close a base while claiming it is a direct result of the failed union contract....or something. |
Originally Posted by mr25cents
(Post 1760998)
Even the flight attendants at American have more balls than PSA and PDT pilots...which is anatomically impossible in a lot of cases :D...voted no too
........... |
Originally Posted by buddies8
(Post 1761242)
Glass and his pupets
|
Originally Posted by Spoiler
(Post 1761877)
that's pupettes
|
Originally Posted by Romulus
(Post 1761688)
Yes they do, but it's worth less than the paper it is written on.
Furloughing is costly and that's what is stopping Envoy from furloughing. Not because they can't, but because it's there are cheaper methods of reducing a pilot group. Fear and intimidation such as saying the airline will be shut down or turned into a ground operation, promises to give away all the 70 seat aircraft and shrinking the airline into nothing by slowly retiring all 50-seaters and by closing bases one by one until there are none. |
Originally Posted by outaluckagain
(Post 1761858)
That is really easier said than done in many cases. The company can't just send an entire base worth of flying to a different company,since that particular base is geographically located for a reason.
The other company can't simply absorb anything thrown at it either. Base closings are for strategic reasons, but a company may try to intimidate their employees by making these threats. Close a base while claiming it is a direct result of the failed union contract....or something. http://oi58.tinypic.com/jqncww.jpg |
Originally Posted by eaglefly
(Post 1762112)
You're preaching to the choir, brutha. The furlough protection IS worth the paper it's printed on unless Envoy pilots CBA is nullified. That being said, normal attrition will prevent furloughs up to a point and then the problem is the opposite for management........then they have to worry about too much attrition too fast.
|
Originally Posted by Romulus
(Post 1762225)
You gave up a lot of concessions for that no furlough clause and I sincerely hope you are correct.
|
clarification
One of our MEC members is stating that the reason there is no TA is because management refuses to place a better flow or substantial fleet plan on the table. I'm not sure what negotiations he is watching, maybe it is the APFA flight attendants, but AA and Envoy management are offering a minimum flow of 30 per month and 360 per year. I may not be a math genius but 30 per month and 360 per year MINIMUM is greater than 20 per month and 240 per year. If our MEC had shared management's proposal with you, you would already know that.
With reference to a "substantial fleet plan," you may recall that a year ago, management offered a minimum fleet plan of 170 aircraft (2 times higher than the only other fleet plan in the regional industry) but Envoy pilots rejected it after the MEC told us the pilot shortage would cause management to come crawling back to the table. In reality, management went out and placed 40 of our aircraft at cheaper regionals and is now back offering us the remaining 130. Hard to offer a fleet plan greater than the orders and options you have on the table and don't forget that we're the ones that turned down the fleet plan. What the MEC is not telling you, is that they have been told that there is a deadline coming up and if the Envoy pilots don't ratify a deal in short order, more of the remaining orders are already slated to go to another carrier. So while the gentleman from New York is telling you that management isn't offering an enhanced flow (untrue) and a substantial fleet plan (management is offering us the remaining orders and options), the truth is that we are heading toward a cliff and no one on the MEC feels that it is appropriate to tell you the truth. Some of you claim that I am a management spy, which is not true. I am just an average line pilot with his ear to the ground. But regardless of what you believe I am, the truth is that the MEC is playing games and hiding facts from the pilots whose jobs are on the line. You might want to ask "why"? |
Originally Posted by publicphone
(Post 1762860)
One of our MEC members is stating that the reason there is no TA is because management refuses to place a better flow or substantial fleet plan on the table. I'm not sure what negotiations he is watching, maybe it is the APFA flight attendants, but AA and Envoy management are offering a minimum flow of 30 per month and 360 per year. I may not be a math genius but 30 per month and 360 per year MINIMUM is greater than 20 per month and 240 per year. If our MEC had shared management's proposal with you, you would already know that.
With reference to a "substantial fleet plan," you may recall that a year ago, management offered a minimum fleet plan of 170 aircraft (2 times higher than the only other fleet plan in the regional industry) but Envoy pilots rejected it after the MEC told us the pilot shortage would cause management to come crawling back to the table. In reality, management went out and placed 40 of our aircraft at cheaper regionals and is now back offering us the remaining 130. Hard to offer a fleet plan greater than the orders and options you have on the table and don't forget that we're the ones that turned down the fleet plan. What the MEC is not telling you, is that they have been told that there is a deadline coming up and if the Envoy pilots don't ratify a deal in short order, more of the remaining orders are already slated to go to another carrier. So while the gentleman from New York is telling you that management isn't offering an enhanced flow (untrue) and a substantial fleet plan (management is offering us the remaining orders and options), the truth is that we are heading toward a cliff and no one on the MEC feels that it is appropriate to tell you the truth. Some of you claim that I am a management spy, which is not true. I am just an average line pilot with his ear to the ground. But regardless of what you believe I am, the truth is that the MEC is playing games and hiding facts from the pilots whose jobs are on the line. You might want to ask "why"? |
Originally Posted by publicphone
(Post 1762860)
One of our MEC members is stating that the reason there is no TA is because management refuses to place a better flow or substantial fleet plan on the table. I'm not sure what negotiations he is watching, maybe it is the APFA flight attendants, but AA and Envoy management are offering a minimum flow of 30 per month and 360 per year. I may not be a math genius but 30 per month and 360 per year MINIMUM is greater than 20 per month and 240 per year. If our MEC had shared management's proposal with you, you would already know that.
With reference to a "substantial fleet plan," you may recall that a year ago, management offered a minimum fleet plan of 170 aircraft (2 times higher than the only other fleet plan in the regional industry) but Envoy pilots rejected it after the MEC told us the pilot shortage would cause management to come crawling back to the table. In reality, management went out and placed 40 of our aircraft at cheaper regionals and is now back offering us the remaining 130. Hard to offer a fleet plan greater than the orders and options you have on the table and don't forget that we're the ones that turned down the fleet plan. What the MEC is not telling you, is that they have been told that there is a deadline coming up and if the Envoy pilots don't ratify a deal in short order, more of the remaining orders are already slated to go to another carrier. So while the gentleman from New York is telling you that management isn't offering an enhanced flow (untrue) and a substantial fleet plan (management is offering us the remaining orders and options), the truth is that we are heading toward a cliff and no one on the MEC feels that it is appropriate to tell you the truth. Some of you claim that I am a management spy, which is not true. I am just an average line pilot with his ear to the ground. But regardless of what you believe I am, the truth is that the MEC is playing games and hiding facts from the pilots whose jobs are on the line. You might want to ask "why"? |
Um, do I trust management and their lackeys or my Union representatives?
|
Originally Posted by wareagle
(Post 1762893)
Funny that they can offer an immediate increase in flow to 30/month if we agree to concessions, but allowing more than 20/month to abide by the arbitrator's decision is a hardship that will disrupt the operation. Unless we agree to concessions. Can there even be the slightest illusion that they aren't willfully disregarding an arbitrator's decision in order to punish a pilot group? It is CRYSTAL clear that they are REQUIRED to release enough pilots to maintain an aggregate 50% of AA new-hires from the beginning of the 824 flow period, unless it is impossible. At this point I guarantee that they are far enough behind to warrant releasing 30/month anyway. But, unless we agree to concessions, it's a hardship for the operation.
If it's so easy to get rid of our airplanes and dish out flying to other providers, it should be no problem to open the throttle on flow. If they are lying about that, then their offer of 30/month in any TA is also a lie that they won't honor (and all their threats are quite a bit more empty). If they are being truthful and it's within their capability to flow 30/month right now if we sign, then they are willfully failing to abide by the arbitration award right now. They are screwing us, illegally, in order to punish us. |
Originally Posted by publicphone
(Post 1762860)
One of our MEC members is stating that the reason there is no TA is because management refuses to place a better flow or substantial fleet plan on the table. I'm not sure what negotiations he is watching, maybe it is the APFA flight attendants, but AA and Envoy management are offering a minimum flow of 30 per month and 360 per year. I may not be a math genius but 30 per month and 360 per year MINIMUM is greater than 20 per month and 240 per year. If our MEC had shared management's proposal with you, you would already know that.
With reference to a "substantial fleet plan," you may recall that a year ago, management offered a minimum fleet plan of 170 aircraft (2 times higher than the only other fleet plan in the regional industry) but Envoy pilots rejected it after the MEC told us the pilot shortage would cause management to come crawling back to the table. In reality, management went out and placed 40 of our aircraft at cheaper regionals and is now back offering us the remaining 130. Hard to offer a fleet plan greater than the orders and options you have on the table and don't forget that we're the ones that turned down the fleet plan. What the MEC is not telling you, is that they have been told that there is a deadline coming up and if the Envoy pilots don't ratify a deal in short order, more of the remaining orders are already slated to go to another carrier. So while the gentleman from New York is telling you that management isn't offering an enhanced flow (untrue) and a substantial fleet plan (management is offering us the remaining orders and options), the truth is that we are heading toward a cliff and no one on the MEC feels that it is appropriate to tell you the truth. Some of you claim that I am a management spy, which is not true. I am just an average line pilot with his ear to the ground. But regardless of what you believe I am, the truth is that the MEC is playing games and hiding facts from the pilots whose jobs are on the line. You might want to ask "why"? Post number 2, and claim not to be a spy? Or maybe the fact that you are saying the MEC is lying, but you know all of the actual facts that were presented behind closed doors that only the NC and MEC would have. I'll think I'll go with management stooly. |
Originally Posted by AlaskaBound
(Post 1762870)
I'm pretty sure the first steps have been taken off that cliff you speak of. Also, let me rephrase your sentence..."the truth is that AA management is playing games and hiding facts from the pilots whose jobs are on the line."
|
Originally Posted by wareagle
(Post 1762893)
Funny that they can offer an immediate increase in flow to 30/month if we agree to concessions, but allowing more than 20/month to abide by the arbitrator's decision is a hardship that will disrupt the operation. Unless we agree to concessions. Can there even be the slightest illusion that they aren't willfully disregarding an arbitrator's decision in order to punish a pilot group? It is CRYSTAL clear that they are REQUIRED to release enough pilots to maintain an aggregate 50% of AA new-hires from the beginning of the 824 flow period, unless it is impossible. At this point I guarantee that they are far enough behind to warrant releasing 30/month anyway. But, unless we agree to concessions, it's a hardship for the operation.
Say hi to the newest shill. :rolleyes: |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by publicphone
(Post 1762860)
One of our MEC members is stating that the reason there is no TA is because management refuses to place a better flow or substantial fleet plan on the table. I'm not sure what negotiations he is watching, maybe it is the APFA flight attendants, but AA and Envoy management are offering a minimum flow of 30 per month and 360 per year. I may not be a math genius but 30 per month and 360 per year MINIMUM is greater than 20 per month and 240 per year. If our MEC had shared management's proposal with you, you would already know that.
With reference to a "substantial fleet plan," you may recall that a year ago, management offered a minimum fleet plan of 170 aircraft (2 times higher than the only other fleet plan in the regional industry) but Envoy pilots rejected it after the MEC told us the pilot shortage would cause management to come crawling back to the table. In reality, management went out and placed 40 of our aircraft at cheaper regionals and is now back offering us the remaining 130. Hard to offer a fleet plan greater than the orders and options you have on the table and don't forget that we're the ones that turned down the fleet plan. What the MEC is not telling you, is that they have been told that there is a deadline coming up and if the Envoy pilots don't ratify a deal in short order, more of the remaining orders are already slated to go to another carrier. So while the gentleman from New York is telling you that management isn't offering an enhanced flow (untrue) and a substantial fleet plan (management is offering us the remaining orders and options), the truth is that we are heading toward a cliff and no one on the MEC feels that it is appropriate to tell you the truth. Some of you claim that I am a management spy, which is not true. I am just an average line pilot with his ear to the ground. But regardless of what you believe I am, the truth is that the MEC is playing games and hiding facts from the pilots whose jobs are on the line. You might want to ask "why"? |
Originally Posted by publicphone
(Post 1762860)
One of our MEC members is stating that the reason there is no TA is because management refuses to place a better flow or substantial fleet plan on the table. I'm not sure what negotiations he is watching, maybe it is the APFA flight attendants, but AA and Envoy management are offering a minimum flow of 30 per month and 360 per year. I may not be a math genius but 30 per month and 360 per year MINIMUM is greater than 20 per month and 240 per year. If our MEC had shared management's proposal with you, you would already know that.
With reference to a "substantial fleet plan," you may recall that a year ago, management offered a minimum fleet plan of 170 aircraft (2 times higher than the only other fleet plan in the regional industry) but Envoy pilots rejected it after the MEC told us the pilot shortage would cause management to come crawling back to the table. In reality, management went out and placed 40 of our aircraft at cheaper regionals and is now back offering us the remaining 130. Hard to offer a fleet plan greater than the orders and options you have on the table and don't forget that we're the ones that turned down the fleet plan. What the MEC is not telling you, is that they have been told that there is a deadline coming up and if the Envoy pilots don't ratify a deal in short order, more of the remaining orders are already slated to go to another carrier. So while the gentleman from New York is telling you that management isn't offering an enhanced flow (untrue) and a substantial fleet plan (management is offering us the remaining orders and options), the truth is that we are heading toward a cliff and no one on the MEC feels that it is appropriate to tell you the truth. Some of you claim that I am a management spy, which is not true. I am just an average line pilot with his ear to the ground. But regardless of what you believe I am, the truth is that the MEC is playing games and hiding facts from the pilots whose jobs are on the line. You might want to ask "why"? 30 a month once the 1st 175 arrives at Envoy. Right??? Because that's what my rep told me. Is not 30 a month once we ratify a contract, is once we get the first airplane. Im going to keep voting NO unless there's a real career progression for the pilots after the 824s, a real fleet plan and snap backs if the company fail to follow the contract. |
AAG is all about this 12/4 payscale. It's been said that ALPA tried to negotiate something where if you're stuck as an 8yr FO or 18yr capt, the rates wouldn't apply to you. But, if you choose not to take an upgrade or flow to AA, then you're stuck on the 12/4 scale. It still sucks, but seems way more reasonable and at least a little bit fair! But AAG won't go for it. Now they're trying to bust scope and basically have unlimited 70 seat flying which ultimately means less airplanes at mainline. Which then means no flow or a sloooow flow. So they want everyone at the regional level trapped on a 12/4 payscale.
Their ultimate goal is becoming clearer and clearer. I just hope we're not dumb enough to bite on a $hitty a$$ deal. |
no deal left to bite on
they inked another carrier |
Doesn't matter. You guys accept 12/4 and guess what's happening? You will merge with PSA.
Then, their 8 month Captains will be merged into your seniority list. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:34 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands