Frontier Negotiations Discussion
04-22-2018, 08:48 AM
#1481
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Posts: 180
Originally Posted by Aero1900
Let's not start talking NO votes until you attend a road show. This is ridiculous. We don't have a TA yet and we are already deciding we are voting no?
Lets wait and see the outcome of the negotiations first. There is so much we don't know yet.
Lets wait and see the outcome of the negotiations first. There is so much we don't know yet.
Look, I get it. It's just laughable to me to hear all these people showboating by saying that "I'll be a firm NO, unless...!!"
There is absolutely zero usefulness in anyone taking such a hard stance on any one issue without seeing the context of an entire proposal. It's been proven many times by very boisterous pilot groups that when given the chance to vote, if the positive improvements are worthwhile, the proposal will ratify. I don't believe our guys will lay an egg and bring us some dogsh!t to vote on, so why don't we just sit back and let the process move and allow the people we've elected and nominated to do their jobs.
04-22-2018, 01:28 PM
#1484
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Position: Airbus (the wide ones)
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by PowerMan
+1
Look, I’m disheartened to say this because I truly appreciate the job the negotiations committee has done. I’m also fully aware of the delay we will incure following a rejection of a TA. However, after speaking with reps to clarify our position, I will also be a NO on a TA that doesn’t meet at least industry standard as an overall contract. There is absolutely no reason we should accept subpar sections. On the contrary, given the sacrifice of this pilot group during bankruptcy, the extended timeline on that bankruptcy contract, the outcome of the LOA 67 arbitration, and the overall disregard and disdain the company has shown for our current CBA, we should expect higher than average. It’s just absurd that we are striving to ratify barely acceptable (or unacceptable) sections for a 5 year (that will become a nine year) contract!
Just take another look at that last proposal. Note all the “Accept ALPA xxx-xxx Proposal”. Not one is above industry average. The per-diem is subpar as is the term of 5 years. So is the LTD! Why? What gains offset these? Line bidding would be a gain as opposed to PBS but they are attempting to gut that as well. Even the wording of “LOA 67/signing bonus” leads me to believe that there won’t be retro. They obviously want to lump some petty $ amount together for a LOA 67/signing bonus that will allow them to avoid accountability for the delay. A $15000 (or whatever) bonus is worth $15000 today and $15000 two years from now! A signing bonus encourages the company to delay at all costs. Retro is the only motivator for swift resolution.
It’s just all shaping up to be a reflection of their opinion of us as discount pilot group. I don’t share that opinion. Without some drastic shift, they can also count my vote now.
Settle in, we will have to strike just to see a subpar TA. I think that after that we will have to scrap the process and start from square one.
Edit: spelling
Look, I’m disheartened to say this because I truly appreciate the job the negotiations committee has done. I’m also fully aware of the delay we will incure following a rejection of a TA. However, after speaking with reps to clarify our position, I will also be a NO on a TA that doesn’t meet at least industry standard as an overall contract. There is absolutely no reason we should accept subpar sections. On the contrary, given the sacrifice of this pilot group during bankruptcy, the extended timeline on that bankruptcy contract, the outcome of the LOA 67 arbitration, and the overall disregard and disdain the company has shown for our current CBA, we should expect higher than average. It’s just absurd that we are striving to ratify barely acceptable (or unacceptable) sections for a 5 year (that will become a nine year) contract!
Just take another look at that last proposal. Note all the “Accept ALPA xxx-xxx Proposal”. Not one is above industry average. The per-diem is subpar as is the term of 5 years. So is the LTD! Why? What gains offset these? Line bidding would be a gain as opposed to PBS but they are attempting to gut that as well. Even the wording of “LOA 67/signing bonus” leads me to believe that there won’t be retro. They obviously want to lump some petty $ amount together for a LOA 67/signing bonus that will allow them to avoid accountability for the delay. A $15000 (or whatever) bonus is worth $15000 today and $15000 two years from now! A signing bonus encourages the company to delay at all costs. Retro is the only motivator for swift resolution.
It’s just all shaping up to be a reflection of their opinion of us as discount pilot group. I don’t share that opinion. Without some drastic shift, they can also count my vote now.
Settle in, we will have to strike just to see a subpar TA. I think that after that we will have to scrap the process and start from square one.
Edit: spelling
Its laughable that in the Negotiations Update they are comparing pay rates to Spirit when we should be providing an industry standard pay scale to illustrate just how poor their offer really is. That sleight of hand alone tells me they are managing expectations and we should be satisfied with something that is close to Spirit. Instead the most profitable airline in the nations should have a contract that at a minimum is an across the board industry standard contract.
04-22-2018, 02:30 PM
#1486
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2017
Posts: 453
Managing expectations... yep.
Been feeling this for the better part of a year.
And this is where we might have failed by voting in ALPA.
They, ALPA, and their the lawyer(s) want a deal and it doesn't matter if we suck hind tit for another 8 years to them.
They will sell the living crap out of whatever TA gets presented, and the problem with that is there is no organized counter campaign. The no voters will get steamrolled, and it will pass by narrowish margin because yes, it is better than what we have.
Don't let this happen guys. Stand on principle here, not the money you think you'll lose if you send it back. You're not in RJs anymore, and we are NOT discount pilots!
Been feeling this for the better part of a year.
And this is where we might have failed by voting in ALPA.
They, ALPA, and their the lawyer(s) want a deal and it doesn't matter if we suck hind tit for another 8 years to them.
They will sell the living crap out of whatever TA gets presented, and the problem with that is there is no organized counter campaign. The no voters will get steamrolled, and it will pass by narrowish margin because yes, it is better than what we have.
Don't let this happen guys. Stand on principle here, not the money you think you'll lose if you send it back. You're not in RJs anymore, and we are NOT discount pilots!
04-22-2018, 03:02 PM
#1487
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by Wheelswatch
Managing expectations... yep.
Been feeling this for the better part of a year.
And this is where we might have failed by voting in ALPA.
They, ALPA, and their the lawyer(s) want a deal and it doesn't matter if we suck hind tit for another 8 years to them.
They will sell the living crap out of whatever TA gets presented, and the problem with that is there is no organized counter campaign. The no voters will get steamrolled, and it will pass by narrowish margin because yes, it is better than what we have.
Don't let this happen guys. Stand on principle here, not the money you think you'll lose if you send it back. You're not in RJs anymore, and we are NOT discount pilots!
Been feeling this for the better part of a year.
And this is where we might have failed by voting in ALPA.
They, ALPA, and their the lawyer(s) want a deal and it doesn't matter if we suck hind tit for another 8 years to them.
They will sell the living crap out of whatever TA gets presented, and the problem with that is there is no organized counter campaign. The no voters will get steamrolled, and it will pass by narrowish margin because yes, it is better than what we have.
Don't let this happen guys. Stand on principle here, not the money you think you'll lose if you send it back. You're not in RJs anymore, and we are NOT discount pilots!
Take a page from CW. Winners like you type faster than you can think. Ever consider ALPA gets more of your money if you make more? That alone shoots down your ignorant statement.
Why don’t you participate in the process before you b!tch? Answer: it would require actual effort. How do I know you haven’t? You and your fellow keyboard warriors in the last few posts obviously haven’t been keeping up.
Keep it in house, listen to Chinook, email folks directly, and if nothing else, **** on an open forum!
04-22-2018, 06:06 PM
#1489
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: 1900D CA
Posts: 3,395
Originally Posted by Wheelswatch
Managing expectations... yep.
Been feeling this for the better part of a year.
And this is where we might have failed by voting in ALPA.
They, ALPA, and their the lawyer(s) want a deal and it doesn't matter if we suck hind tit for another 8 years to
Been feeling this for the better part of a year.
And this is where we might have failed by voting in ALPA.
They, ALPA, and their the lawyer(s) want a deal and it doesn't matter if we suck hind tit for another 8 years to
And again, let's not start passing judgement before there is even anything to judge.
04-22-2018, 06:10 PM
#1490
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: 1900D CA
Posts: 3,395
Originally Posted by doz4dllrs
I agree as well. What HAS been TA'd that is industry standard? At nearly every turn it looks like we are on track to bring up the bottom. How this is even possible when we are the most profitable airline in the nation is beyond me.
Its laughable that in the Negotiations Update they are comparing pay rates to Spirit when we should be providing an industry standard pay scale to illustrate just how poor their offer really is. That sleight of hand alone tells me they are managing expectations and we should be satisfied with something that is close to Spirit. Instead the most profitable airline in the nations should have a contract that at a minimum is an across the board industry standard contract.
Its laughable that in the Negotiations Update they are comparing pay rates to Spirit when we should be providing an industry standard pay scale to illustrate just how poor their offer really is. That sleight of hand alone tells me they are managing expectations and we should be satisfied with something that is close to Spirit. Instead the most profitable airline in the nations should have a contract that at a minimum is an across the board industry standard contract.
Negotiations aren't complete. There is no TA. Don't vote before you know what you are voting on.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
