Warhawg01

Realize the 93.15 in that screenshot is TFP. Converted to hours (1.15) is 81.

Xdashdriver

Plus the fact that the F9 guy with those same vacation days could (assuming he has 3+ vacation weeks per year) elect to be paid 80 hours for those two weeks, plus that 8 hour trip makes for 88 hours of pay. Oh wait, no...that pesky little 125% override that the no voters don’t want also kicks in making it 89.5 hours of pay.

Nacho Libre

You also just reduced your 3rd week of vacation by 28%.

Gary et al

Thanks for noticing that, I did miss that, and that is my mistake. That definitely makes the discrepancy closer to acceptable. $600 per 2 vacations vs. $3000. It still works out to $1.33/hr over 4 vacations a year, and the question would be if its only $1.33/hr why are we, the pilots, the ones who are always taking the hit? This is with our "industry leading" 5 hour per day vacation credit.

When we come up a little short in all of these areas of the contract, and very short in language in some very important areas it just shows this total package is not where it needs to be.

monkeybrains

When compared to industry average, the issue has nothing to do with “average”, it has to do with duty period vs calendar day, delta, United jet blue etc all have AVERAGE calendar days. UA is at 5:00 with no carve out, delta and aa is at 5:15 with a carve out to 0200. An average calendar day would have been nice. We got 100% dh, 3.5 rig (not tied to pbs) implementation and a 5:00 avg duty period. Next time we will get an avg calendar day. This is our first cba in a decade and 1st cba our of bankruptcy, it would have been great to get everything in one contract cycle, but no other airline was able to do that including DL, UA etc. we are most of the way there and next time around we will get the rest

ColdWhiskey

We will never catch up when we keep agreeing to duration that is too long. Most of our peers have gone through 2 contract cycles since our bankruptcy concession agreement. That is because we agreed to a duration that was way too long.

Some of our peers are preparing for early openers on their next contract (essentially making us 3 cycles behind). Before the ink is even dry on our new agreement, our contract will be so far outdated, especially since we will be solidly in last place if we agree to this TA.

Let’s learn from past mistakes folks. The duration on this agreement needs to be 3 years, or we will forever cement our position at the bottom.

Trowserchilli

Look no further than B6s contract to dispel this thinking.

First contract ever for them and its light years ahead of this bottom bacement TA.

Missed Appch

I completely agree. Also agree with that above post saying that this is too long. There is no reason for this to be five years. Five more years at the bottom.

monkeybrains

B6 had 100%DH, 3.5 rig, average min duty period and top CA rates that were almost $60/hr more than us to name a few. B6 has never been in bankruptcy.

ColdWhiskey

Another negative: No Scope regarding RJ seat limit or weight limit.

This was addressed in the union’s question and answer section. The answer was that regional operators had few pilots and limited available capacity, thus it is no longer considered a threat to yours and my job!

WTF!!????

Nothing is more important than rock solid scope language! Without scope, none of the rest matters.

Granted, there is ‘no-furlough’ language regarding marketing agreements, but there is the potential for flat or no growth while unlimited numbers of 90 and 100 seat RJs haul Frontier customers.

Some will argue that this is not the ULCC business model. Guess what? Business models change as we have found out! We need language that protects us, the pilots, no matter what future business sense dictates, or what future business models look like.

Did we not learn anything from the past 30 years in this industry, where the proliferation of the RJ stalled the careers of nearly every airline pilot, both at the regional and major level?