Originally Posted by Laughing_Jakal

And that Patches is why some thought we couldn't get anymore. I agree...this TA should never have seen the light of day. How would you feel if it was voted down and I said "OK...I wanted that bonus...I'm an individual contractor now"....it would have stymied the efforts to renegotiate. There is still work to do...we need to re-engage on retirement...we need to fly this contract and enforce it and challenge every crappy interpretation on loose language. In the mean time....enjoy the positive changes and be intellectually honest about the items that you thought were the bogeyman and turned out to be.

Originally Posted by Chainsaw

So we needed to pass it to see what's in it so we can fix it? Why would the company negotiate anything now? They have a contract. Please explain to me how you think this is going to play out. I'm seriously asking you why you think the company would give us more of anything now. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Originally Posted by Laughing_Jakal

Because they've been wanting to engage us on our retirement since 2005. Listen, I flew with an FO who was a NO voter because he wanted to either get an A plan bump per perpetuity or sellout the Aplan for cash over cap. He had no interest in paying for any retirement that wasn't going to make him "F'n rich" his words when he retired 23 years from now.

Dude, If he want's out, and the money they save doing that gets me an Afund bump and the company shells out a few less devalued dollars...then everybody wins.

Besides, we should ask.....what if they do re-engage....doesn't hurt to explore...and we've secured gains in the contract. Did I say I just commissioned a custom built ski-boat with 21 of my collierville fellow yes voters......thing is firkin awesome....... :-)

I did need to edit my previous post....It should say be intellectually honest when you find out the things you thought were the bogeyman turned out NOT to be

Originally Posted by MaxKts

What good is that ski boat? Did you not realize that under the TA all days off are now R days. And, the best part is, they only pay R day value even if you get launched!

Originally Posted by Laughing_Jakal

And that Patches is why some thought we couldn't get anymore. I agree...this TA should never have seen the light of day.

Originally Posted by magic rat

Here's some other goodies I've read.
1) Usage of sleep room IN LIEU OF hotel during hub turns.

Originally Posted by pipe

1) That would put us back to square one, wandering around like zombies due to shortage of sleep rooms. The sleep room availability was a part of FDX's argument for a cargo cutout.

Originally Posted by CloudSailor

How are these rumors even possible? Are we negotiating with a company that has recently emerged from bankruptcy??? NO! Is our airline about to go into bankruptcy??? NO!!! This concessionary language is insane. And the 'leaks' or rumors keep getting worse and worse.

The points above, along with no A-plan increase, will be an instant NO vote for me, I will stop reading the remainder of the TA regardless of hourly payrate, and backpay.

Please MEC, do NOT send this to the tired masses (majority?) who can only think "Contract Now".

Originally Posted by TonyC

First, note the language is in BLUE text. Scroll back to the top of the page to see that BLUE text denotes "Company gained efficiencies". That's double-talk for "concessions agreed to."

Then note the specific verbiage used. It's not the pilot's choice, it's The Company's choice:

if an intermediate stop is less than 5 hours and the stop occurs during the night or critical duty period (or during a domestic duty period at the Memphis hub sort facility), the Company may substitute a sleep room in the hub sort facility for a hotel room;

Interestingly, we recently received a communication from the Professional Standards Committee:

A situation is occurring in the Indy hub that has to be addressed. A number of pilots whose schedule gives them a hotel room are choosing instead to use a sleep room. This takes the sleep rooms away from those pilots who do not have a hotel room. Now they are not getting enough rest and the hotel rooms are empty.

Don't do this. We have the rooms for safety reasons and now some pilots are sleep deprived because of some short-sighted pilots. We should be keeping each other honest on this so management does not have to check schedules against the sleep room sign-in sheet. Let's fix this now for our fellow union members.

Apparently our Negotiating Committee doesn't talk to our Professional Standards Committee. Last week it was unsafe; next week it's the CBA?

Originally Posted by TonyC

I left that part out because (A) it is irrelevant to the quality of rest one can get in a sleep room versus the quality of rest he can get in a 10' x 10' cubicle with a twin bed and a chair (and noisy neighbors) and (B) we have no control over the block-in to block-out schedules. The Company controls the schedules, and they are not bound to make them realistic. Hmm, I need to cancel a hotel here, need a couple more sleep rooms, OK, let's schedule Flight XYZ to block out at O'Dark-thirty instead of -thirty-seven, and their turn will be 2:28. Of course, they'll never leave on time, but at least they won't be taking up two sleep rooms.

As it stands today, a pilot jumpseating in to go to work, or a pilot finishing a trip and jumpseating home can use a sleep room if they are available. When The Company starts using sleep rooms instead of hotel rooms for pilots who should get them now, don't expect those extra sleep rooms to be available.

The proposition is ridiculous. Why did we give up hotel rooms for rest periods that rate them?

Originally Posted by FDXLAG

Tony how many hub turn hotels do we use in Memphis? How many sleep rooms do jumpseaters get to use in Ind? If anything this will require the company to make more sleep rooms.

Originally Posted by FDXLAG

... right now we are short of sleep rooms in INDY, I don't think this is a big deal, ...

Originally Posted by FDXLAG

Only if they build more Indy sleep rooms, right now they don't have enough. It is a little concession, ...

Originally Posted by TonyC

FCIF (Paraphrase) The INDY Hub doesn't have enough sleep rooms for all the pilots turning through there on a nightly basis. We only have to provide hotel rooms if the scheduled turn is 4:00 or more, but out of the graciousness of our hearts, we're going to provide hotel rooms for turns of 3:45 or more. Merry Christmas!


Wow. Who would have seen that coming?

.

Originally Posted by Fdxlag2

So the 4 hour requirement was changed to 5 but is now enforced at 3:45 and it is my understanding they are building a whole bunch of sleep rooms? Who ever was selectively edited to say this wasn’t a big deal is a genius. How has this changed due to the contract? There weren’t enough sleep rooms before. There aren’t enough sleep rooms now. Pilots weren’t using the hotel rooms when they were scheduled.

If you want to ***** about screening and how it makes using a hotel room a pain in the ass, I’m with you. Although I understand that is under revision too.