View Poll Results: Would u have voted Y if full retro was in TA1
With full retro I would have voted yes on TA1 as is
22
20.75%
With full retro I would have voted no on TA1 as is
84
79.25%
Voters: 106. You may not vote on this poll
True Retro
01-18-2025 | 08:40 AM
#41
Line Holder
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 204
Likes: 2
I wasn't talking about why it failed....I was simply pointing out that what was said was factually untrue....the penalties weren't eliminated...then the focus whas changed to whether blk vs ch was a concession, and I tried to show it was certainly more nuanced than the "sound bite" that is oft repeated without critical analysis.
No I don't acknowledge that TA1 Scope was a concession....I think it was "cost neutral" as the company likes to say. I don't do Facebook, but from what I hear the conversation on JF is more sophmoric than here. The only "hard data" of what the company can do is in the TA....that analysis is "hard data"....I also used actual wet lease reports and did an analysis of what we would be paid under TA1 vs the existing CBA as penalties. What I wrote previously was not that....that was just napkin math in general about the penalties.....What is true is that Wet-leasing at the current rates pay less under TA1....not by much.....but if the "Fear Porn" about the company trying to wet-lease the whole business tried to happen, the penalties get enormous.
I will tell you that anyone who has been here a while knows that a wet-lease penalty has never done more than buy a very expensive dinner for a large family......if it ever paid at all. In analyzing actual wetleases from the past, TA1 would reduce that payment amount......only by the amount that equals your daughter's boyfriends share of the dinner (and we didn't like him anyway)....
In return, we got a method that while allowing the company to pay a little less in the event they do light to moderate wet-leasing (as compared to past practice), financially discourages wholesale wetleasing.....and the largest penalty saved for when wetleasing while furloughing.
If the discussion on JF is anything like here, then I imagine their analysis on "Student Lines, R-16" is similiar. I don't think it's really a hard win and certainly not a "Concession"....it's just different....and the whole "it'll change the way people bid argument" is specious. Everytime a contract is changed....people change the way they use it.....I imagine right now with BLG's down.....I bet the Student lines would go way senior. Same with the R-16......
What has often been cried about as a "Huge Concession"....during these discussions mostly centers around someones ablility to use the new language. "Someone moved their cheese". R24 was a "win" for Memphis residents and those who can commute in easily.....it was a perceived concession for those who live farther away.....simply because of the way R24 was used for the past 25 years.....they would call you in for 4 days of Hotel STBY...period end of discussion. There was no "sitting reserve from home" away from domicile. And if you got an actual assignment, then there was no such thing as "leveling", as any subsequent assignment did not need 24 hours notice.....so they couldn't use anybody else on the R24 list....hence they would turn you and turn you until the end of the block.
So I do not concede that these were concessions. I will not be persuaded to concede by emotion and group pressure because a whole bunch of people decided to listen to what their buddy said instead of crunching the numbers themselves. I wil note that the only reason I got into the weeds on the scope thing is that a friend of mine (who has been here 20+) called me and said: "All these guys seem to really think the Scope section is a problem....I know you....tell me what you think." (He basically did what the rest of the crew force did and instead of working it out decided to rely on someone else's opinion). He also knew I would run the numbers.....after I gave it the smell test.
As far as R-16 and student lines, I relied on what PM said and my own experiential knowledge having bid R24 and never having the seniority to buddy bid LCA's. Why rely on PM? Well, I was paying him thru my dues to do the negotiation, and do that analysis. I listened to what he said based on my knowledge of the situation and my experience here with 20+ years of working under the contracts here. I listened to the SIG. Then I re-read the section. THen I came to a decision.....
I'm not here saying TA1 was the end all be all.....I merely pointed out when a poster said that the Wet-Lease penalty was eliminated "By Pat".....that what he said was patently false....Then the narrative to changed that "well, it wasn't eliminated, but the change to blk hours was a huge giveaway"....and I showed how it was not. Then I wass told....well there's "Hard Data", on JF....
I spent hours crunching numbers from wet-lease reports to figure out the difference in penalty payments and am willing to bet most of the loudest voices on JF and here did not....you know you didn't. And I know that because I'm aware of my own personality quirks and the fact that once I get into the rabbit hole, I go all the way down until I find the bottom. My vanity doesn't let me take someone else's word for it.....and unfortunately for the people in my life, I spent way too much time crunching wet lease numbers......just to know. And I know most won't go to that much trouble, and if they did, they would also not repeat stuff that is commonly heard but is not true!
And now the focus was changed to R16 and Student lines as if to somehow discredit the fact that I pointed out the hyperbole about the penalty.
Look, with the next TA we're going to have to go thru this whole process again. I have people in my HOA who didn't read the covenants before they moved in. Some people don't read their mortgages contracts which is why we need to sign so many disclosures that even more people don't read their mortgage documents. Most of us don't even read the "Terms of service" that they agree to everytime they update an app (they rely on someone else to tell them JF or APC style...."hey, if the App was a scam, someone would say something". More dangerous are the people that don't know what they don't know and are not willing to back away from a position that they got emotionally aligned with and refuse to absorb new information contrary to their world view.
If you ever want a TA to ratify, this crew force is gonna have to do critical analysis....take the time to do the research you don't feel like doing....quit following the loudest voices, picking sides, then trying to "discredit" people who aren't "aligned" with your camp. In this cycle, we had a block rep whom people trusted and elected....then he said "I learned more...I've changed my mind"...then they didn't trust him anymore....We had a NC that no one seemed to have a problem with until the TA.....then they didn't like what they said and he became "untrusted" by many. Hopefully this crewforce will learn to pick someone to trust first...then listen to what they say even if it's something they don't want to hear. Then they will do their own analyzis....make a decision and quite relying on social pressure to validate their decision.
No I don't acknowledge that TA1 Scope was a concession....I think it was "cost neutral" as the company likes to say. I don't do Facebook, but from what I hear the conversation on JF is more sophmoric than here. The only "hard data" of what the company can do is in the TA....that analysis is "hard data"....I also used actual wet lease reports and did an analysis of what we would be paid under TA1 vs the existing CBA as penalties. What I wrote previously was not that....that was just napkin math in general about the penalties.....What is true is that Wet-leasing at the current rates pay less under TA1....not by much.....but if the "Fear Porn" about the company trying to wet-lease the whole business tried to happen, the penalties get enormous.
I will tell you that anyone who has been here a while knows that a wet-lease penalty has never done more than buy a very expensive dinner for a large family......if it ever paid at all. In analyzing actual wetleases from the past, TA1 would reduce that payment amount......only by the amount that equals your daughter's boyfriends share of the dinner (and we didn't like him anyway)....
In return, we got a method that while allowing the company to pay a little less in the event they do light to moderate wet-leasing (as compared to past practice), financially discourages wholesale wetleasing.....and the largest penalty saved for when wetleasing while furloughing.
If the discussion on JF is anything like here, then I imagine their analysis on "Student Lines, R-16" is similiar. I don't think it's really a hard win and certainly not a "Concession"....it's just different....and the whole "it'll change the way people bid argument" is specious. Everytime a contract is changed....people change the way they use it.....I imagine right now with BLG's down.....I bet the Student lines would go way senior. Same with the R-16......
What has often been cried about as a "Huge Concession"....during these discussions mostly centers around someones ablility to use the new language. "Someone moved their cheese". R24 was a "win" for Memphis residents and those who can commute in easily.....it was a perceived concession for those who live farther away.....simply because of the way R24 was used for the past 25 years.....they would call you in for 4 days of Hotel STBY...period end of discussion. There was no "sitting reserve from home" away from domicile. And if you got an actual assignment, then there was no such thing as "leveling", as any subsequent assignment did not need 24 hours notice.....so they couldn't use anybody else on the R24 list....hence they would turn you and turn you until the end of the block.
So I do not concede that these were concessions. I will not be persuaded to concede by emotion and group pressure because a whole bunch of people decided to listen to what their buddy said instead of crunching the numbers themselves. I wil note that the only reason I got into the weeds on the scope thing is that a friend of mine (who has been here 20+) called me and said: "All these guys seem to really think the Scope section is a problem....I know you....tell me what you think." (He basically did what the rest of the crew force did and instead of working it out decided to rely on someone else's opinion). He also knew I would run the numbers.....after I gave it the smell test.
As far as R-16 and student lines, I relied on what PM said and my own experiential knowledge having bid R24 and never having the seniority to buddy bid LCA's. Why rely on PM? Well, I was paying him thru my dues to do the negotiation, and do that analysis. I listened to what he said based on my knowledge of the situation and my experience here with 20+ years of working under the contracts here. I listened to the SIG. Then I re-read the section. THen I came to a decision.....
I'm not here saying TA1 was the end all be all.....I merely pointed out when a poster said that the Wet-Lease penalty was eliminated "By Pat".....that what he said was patently false....Then the narrative to changed that "well, it wasn't eliminated, but the change to blk hours was a huge giveaway"....and I showed how it was not. Then I wass told....well there's "Hard Data", on JF....
I spent hours crunching numbers from wet-lease reports to figure out the difference in penalty payments and am willing to bet most of the loudest voices on JF and here did not....you know you didn't. And I know that because I'm aware of my own personality quirks and the fact that once I get into the rabbit hole, I go all the way down until I find the bottom. My vanity doesn't let me take someone else's word for it.....and unfortunately for the people in my life, I spent way too much time crunching wet lease numbers......just to know. And I know most won't go to that much trouble, and if they did, they would also not repeat stuff that is commonly heard but is not true!
And now the focus was changed to R16 and Student lines as if to somehow discredit the fact that I pointed out the hyperbole about the penalty.
Look, with the next TA we're going to have to go thru this whole process again. I have people in my HOA who didn't read the covenants before they moved in. Some people don't read their mortgages contracts which is why we need to sign so many disclosures that even more people don't read their mortgage documents. Most of us don't even read the "Terms of service" that they agree to everytime they update an app (they rely on someone else to tell them JF or APC style...."hey, if the App was a scam, someone would say something". More dangerous are the people that don't know what they don't know and are not willing to back away from a position that they got emotionally aligned with and refuse to absorb new information contrary to their world view.
If you ever want a TA to ratify, this crew force is gonna have to do critical analysis....take the time to do the research you don't feel like doing....quit following the loudest voices, picking sides, then trying to "discredit" people who aren't "aligned" with your camp. In this cycle, we had a block rep whom people trusted and elected....then he said "I learned more...I've changed my mind"...then they didn't trust him anymore....We had a NC that no one seemed to have a problem with until the TA.....then they didn't like what they said and he became "untrusted" by many. Hopefully this crewforce will learn to pick someone to trust first...then listen to what they say even if it's something they don't want to hear. Then they will do their own analyzis....make a decision and quite relying on social pressure to validate their decision.
I think you and 57% are just going to have to agree to disagree. I've copied the below from a post back when the TA came out. It is far longer, and has charts to back it up, but would be too long to paste here. Needless to say the block/credit switch in my opinion was a massive concession, especially in today's SAM conversations. Lots of people did do critical analysis and came up with a different viewpoint than you. Not sure how long you've been here, but the TA language was a giant loophole for the company who have proven to be masters of exploiting, and why I believe they wanted to open scope.
"We must also consider how much the SAM can be reduced through increased wet leasing. With the penalty formula changing from credit to block, we are encouraging more wet leasing by making the penalties remarkably cheaper. We are also encouraging the outsourcing of high credit, low block trips. So, we'd be left with fewer trips to build regular lines with, and the trips that remain will have a lower credit-to-block ratio. This will not help our SAM.
As it stands today, the TA would allow the company to wet lease about 7000 block hours penalty free. That is enough to replace about 8 of our domestic aircraft, perhaps more if they choose to only outsource our lower block city pairings. Again, leaving our pilots with less flying does not help our SAM.
The removal of 1.B.6. and 1.B.6.c (increased penalties for leasing longer than 4 months) encourages longer-term wet leasing. You say the current years-long wet lease with Atlas is "atypical", but it shows the company's willingness to sign long term wet lease agreements despite the higher penalties in our current CBA. How many more long-term wet leases will they be willing to sign when they are faced with even fewer penalties? This will not help our SAM."
01-18-2025 | 08:42 AM
#42
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,371
Likes: 11
I tried to engage in a positive discussion...I'm not going to get in an argument guided by emotion. Ask your blk rep who is working on our Scope section. I believe Art Luby is involved....He is who briefed us on the TA and people called him horrible things.....When I've had this discussion and I've been able to show factual information, the response I've orten heard was "The company opened scope....there must be a reason".....I guess this is a safe fall back when what you thought you knew turns out to not be so black and white.....it is an attempt to crawl back into the emotionally based comfort hole of your decision. I don't know why the company opened it.....could have been a lost leader. Pat was able to do what many before him could not. I trust him and his rationale when backed up with my own knowledge and experience.
I've seen JG's work product before.....though hopeful this time, his last product was not spectacular....I hope he is at least as successful as Pat.
There's a reason I haven't posted here in almost a year. This place is an echo chamber....I was hoping to only provide an alternate point of view....I called out the hyperbole only because what was said was a sweeping generalization that was essentially untrue. TA1 doesn't exist....piling on it with emotion and non-fact based narrative does not help ratification of any future TA.
Hopefully there won't be a furloiugh.....but if there is....hopefully you read the Furlough and Recall section so you understand what your benefits are.....I'd do that before you get all worked up on here or JF.
I've been here 20+ years to answer the question....
Most didn't work out the math. I'm sure what you posted was not your work, as that is what the Vice Chair of Scope put out "off the record" if I remember right...unless you are him... I'm quite sure that most of that 57% didn't "do the math" but listened to what someone said.
I've seen JG's work product before.....though hopeful this time, his last product was not spectacular....I hope he is at least as successful as Pat.
There's a reason I haven't posted here in almost a year. This place is an echo chamber....I was hoping to only provide an alternate point of view....I called out the hyperbole only because what was said was a sweeping generalization that was essentially untrue. TA1 doesn't exist....piling on it with emotion and non-fact based narrative does not help ratification of any future TA.
Hopefully there won't be a furloiugh.....but if there is....hopefully you read the Furlough and Recall section so you understand what your benefits are.....I'd do that before you get all worked up on here or JF.
I've been here 20+ years to answer the question....
Most didn't work out the math. I'm sure what you posted was not your work, as that is what the Vice Chair of Scope put out "off the record" if I remember right...unless you are him... I'm quite sure that most of that 57% didn't "do the math" but listened to what someone said.
Last edited by Laughing_Jakal; 01-18-2025 at 08:56 AM.
01-18-2025 | 09:20 AM
#43
Line Holder
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 204
Likes: 2
To your final question. My numbers came in more or less in line with the poster I quoted above, but they presented it better than I could. The problem was it was a concession in the section of the contract that was of meteoric rising importance, which has proven to be true, but was never recognized.
01-18-2025 | 09:55 AM
#44
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 12
From: MD11 FO
Jakal,
Do you acknowledge that TA1 Scope section was a concession? That pay rates were staggeringly below industy leading? That vacation, R16, and student lines were QOL givebacks? That the signing bonus was a joke? All for what gain? That's why it failed.
Several posters, mostly on JF, posted hard data on exactly what the company could do in regards to block/credit. I will not get into it here.
Let's hope TA2 is an improvement.
Healty conversation tho, thanks.
Do you acknowledge that TA1 Scope section was a concession? That pay rates were staggeringly below industy leading? That vacation, R16, and student lines were QOL givebacks? That the signing bonus was a joke? All for what gain? That's why it failed.
Several posters, mostly on JF, posted hard data on exactly what the company could do in regards to block/credit. I will not get into it here.
Let's hope TA2 is an improvement.
Healty conversation tho, thanks.
we've got an ignorant crew force and it's grown a lot more ignorant in recent years (as one said in here - see all the RECENT dumb questions on JF).
great fact based analysis by Jakal - not really appropriate for this crowd but great nonetheless.
01-18-2025 | 10:00 AM
#45
Line Holder
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 204
Likes: 2
stop changing subject. Jack straw showed his ignorance by making a grossly false claim about the TA. If he read any other sections like he read that one then it explains a lot. Many on here are the same - not interested in analysis , just follow the tribe. Ignorant to the bone. Don't think it's going to change with TA26 or whenever it happens.
we've got an ignorant crew force and it's grown a lot more ignorant in recent years (as one said in here - see all the RECENT dumb questions on JF).
great fact based analysis by Jakal - not really appropriate for this crowd but great nonetheless.
we've got an ignorant crew force and it's grown a lot more ignorant in recent years (as one said in here - see all the RECENT dumb questions on JF).
great fact based analysis by Jakal - not really appropriate for this crowd but great nonetheless.
01-18-2025 | 10:15 AM
#46
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 12
From: MD11 FO
Okay, thought it was a positive discussion. Oh well. How in the world have you been here 20+ years and not been able to bid LCA lines? Doesn't matter. I'm not far behind you on the list so if a furlough gets to me we have bigger things to worry about. And yes, i've read the sections anyways.
To your final question. My numbers came in more or less in line with the poster I quoted above, but they presented it better than I could. The problem was it was a concession in the section of the contract that was of meteoric rising importance, which has proven to be true, but was never recognized.
To your final question. My numbers came in more or less in line with the poster I quoted above, but they presented it better than I could. The problem was it was a concession in the section of the contract that was of meteoric rising importance, which has proven to be true, but was never recognized.
look many of the changes the CO wanted in TA- were because of problems they saw during COVID - wet lease issues when they were hiring as fast as humanly possible - AVA abuses in their mind, VAC Cnx abuses in their mind. They likely had little future value once everyone realized COVID times weren't lasting. Why didn't they realize that? IDK...but they didn't hence the extreme over hiring. I wasn't a fan of changes in scope either but it wasn't that big a deal and should have been recognized by anyone doing a proper analysis with just a little bit of experience under their belt.
Opening a section doesn't mean the end result is a benefit to one's side. Right now our current NC is negotiating in multiple sections that the Company opened - think it's worth your time to do a deep dive when we get the eventual TA or just assume all of those sections are concessionary?
01-18-2025 | 10:37 AM
#47
Line Holder
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 204
Likes: 2
you joined APC in 2015...my guess is you've likely been here a lot less than 20 years. Oh yeah he said 20 plus years in his analysis...before you asked him so guessing you didn't actually read it?
look many of the changes the CO wanted in TA- were because of problems they saw during COVID - wet lease issues when they were hiring as fast as humanly possible - AVA abuses in their mind, VAC Cnx abuses in their mind. They likely had little future value once everyone realized COVID times weren't lasting. Why didn't they realize that? IDK...but they didn't hence the extreme over hiring. I wasn't a fan of changes in scope either but it wasn't that big a deal and should have been recognized by anyone doing a proper analysis with just a little bit of experience under their belt.
Opening a section doesn't mean the end result is a benefit to one's side. Right now our current NC is negotiating in multiple sections that the Company opened - think it's worth your time to do a deep dive when we get the eventual TA or just assume all of those sections are concessionary?
look many of the changes the CO wanted in TA- were because of problems they saw during COVID - wet lease issues when they were hiring as fast as humanly possible - AVA abuses in their mind, VAC Cnx abuses in their mind. They likely had little future value once everyone realized COVID times weren't lasting. Why didn't they realize that? IDK...but they didn't hence the extreme over hiring. I wasn't a fan of changes in scope either but it wasn't that big a deal and should have been recognized by anyone doing a proper analysis with just a little bit of experience under their belt.
Opening a section doesn't mean the end result is a benefit to one's side. Right now our current NC is negotiating in multiple sections that the Company opened - think it's worth your time to do a deep dive when we get the eventual TA or just assume all of those sections are concessionary?
We all recognize that a lot of what the company wanted was due to covid. Unfortunately, the scope section was terrible (my opinion), and the rest that have already been mentioned. You and Jakal came to a different conclusion. Fair enough, but a lot of people did do a proper analysis, and when you combine that with the change in our current system form, you can see that those worries are completely warrented.
I'll do the same deep dive I did last time, and if any section is concessionary you bet i'll be the first one on here to mention it.
01-18-2025 | 11:21 AM
#48
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,371
Likes: 11
01-18-2025 | 02:05 PM
#50
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,371
Likes: 11
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
