Notices

Contract 2023

Old 02-24-2023, 11:32 AM
  #41  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2012
Position: Happy
Posts: 683
Default

It is important to us brother. That’s why I said one for one DL321 rates or better.

PS. 82cr 125% is a win for the company. It gives people an incentive to work more. Like I said I’m ok with keeping it as long as our rates below that are equal too or better than our peers.
303flyboy is offline  
Old 02-24-2023, 11:56 AM
  #42  
Gets Weekends Off
 
FlyingR6's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2008
Position: F9 FO
Posts: 368
Default

I have a feeling we really need to beef up reassignment rules. The only reason we don't get thrown around like WN and DL is because we don't have the airplanes and route structure to support it logically. But, with every airplane we bring on, we getting closer to that reality.

Not a top line item for sure, but I feel like a worthy one.
FlyingR6 is offline  
Old 02-24-2023, 12:00 PM
  #43  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: 1900D CA
Posts: 3,384
Default

Originally Posted by dracir1 View Post
This is the same sentiment that was said last negotiation - right up until the point where a bottom of the industry TA was sent out for vote (that included a line generator called PBS that the NC said they would absolutely never accept).

As for rates, there’s no way I’m voting for anything less than that of an average of the top 5 of 767/321 rates. Unless we have a snap up (which is, in essence, getting the same thing).
I'm sorry, but I don't think it's fair to blame our contacts short comings on discussions here on APC.

We work for a ULCC owned by Indigo Partners and a contract negotiated by ALPA who's goal was to get a deal done. I think those are bigger factors than having a robust debate on these forums.

The last contract was a tough one. We were desperately far behind and working for a company who's entire focus is on keeping costs down. I'm not upset about our current contract. It improved my life and financial situation tremendously.
Aero1900 is offline  
Old 02-24-2023, 12:05 PM
  #44  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2014
Position: Lineholder
Posts: 1,317
Default

Originally Posted by Aero1900 View Post
I'm sorry, but I don't think it's fair to blame our contacts short comings on discussions here on APC.

We work for a ULCC owned by Indigo Partners and a contract negotiated by ALPA who's goal was to get a deal done. I think those are bigger factors than having a robust debate on these forums.

The last contract was a tough one. We were desperately far behind and working for a company whos entire focus is on keeping costs down. I'm not upset about our current contract. It improved my life and financial situation tremendously.
If you recall my first post, I mentioned the same thing. This forum is NOT the place to debate specific line item details which make up a contract.

To your last point however, we just disagree. There is NO reason to ever negotiate to last place. That was simply stupid in my book. And I don’t blame the NC. The PILOT FORCE voted this in. No amount of advocacy from anyone would get me to vote yes. Obviously I was in the minority - I think that is sad.

Whats to stop it from happening this go around? Things are different somehow? All the tough talk about what was acceptable, etc was all mentioned before. PBS is the clearest example.
dracir1 is offline  
Old 02-24-2023, 12:21 PM
  #45  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2018
Posts: 482
Default

I like a lot of what is being put forth on this thread. I think we need to consider why we would ask to be paid on par with Delta et. al. We operate with the least support in the industry as far as I have observed while jumpseating in the cockpits of every major carrier around the country through Covid and base closures like I was a human ping pong ball. Our gate agents, ramp personnel, contract mechanics, and many of our flight attendants (some are fantastic) are often the worst in the business. As captains we have to deal with issues coming at us from all directions that are usually handled by competent people who do their jobs at other airlines. We have a management group that thinks of us as a rabble that needs to be intimidated not to call in sick and routinely threatens us with investigations. We fly aircraft packed to the gills with passengers who have been treated as marks to be shaken down at every opportunity and understandably often have attitudes that reflect this treatment. So should we ask for or expect to be on par with our peers who have a far easier job pulling their flights off then we do? Heck yeah we should. I would argue that it would be in the company's best interest to want a contract that makes us some of the best paid in the industry with the scheduling flexibility and other quality of life gains that make us very competitive in this job market. If we don't land a contract that reflects our contribution to the daily operations of Frontier Airlines we will all effectively be check airmen every day we fly, training pilots for the legacy airlines. If there was EVER a time to go for it, whole hog, to get as good a contract as we could possibly land - this is it. I hope the Negotiating Committee gets that. I don't want to hear "we can't do that" or "it's to big an ask" out of them this time around.
BiffleBalls is offline  
Old 02-24-2023, 12:24 PM
  #46  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: 1900D CA
Posts: 3,384
Default

Originally Posted by dracir1 View Post
To your last point however, we just disagree. There is NO reason to ever negotiate to last place. That was simply stupid in my book. And I don’t blame the NC. The PILOT FORCE voted this in. No amount of advocacy from anyone would get me to vote yes. Obviously I was in the minority - I think that is sad.

Whats to stop it from happening this go around? Things are different somehow? All the tough talk about what was acceptable, etc was all mentioned before. PBS is the clearest example.
Understood.

I think that the contract is a result of what the NC could achieve. I don't want to "blame" them as I was mostly happy with the deal they got. Obviously I wanted more but I accepted what they got us.

Unfortunately the way the process works, if you don't like what the NC gets you've got a hard decision. Obviously the ultimate vote is with the pilot group, but when the NC and the LEC reps send us a deal, you have to think hard about your vote.

I felt that the deal we got last time was barely acceptable but I didn't think voting it down and waiting a year for TA2 would be worth it so I begrudgingly voted yes. (United is coming up on a year for TA2 now)

As for the PBS.... I didn't see that coming. The union seemed very very strongly against it but obviously it's what they had to do to get a deal. I understand your anger about that.

You ask what's going to stop a subpar TA from getting to us again? Well.... nothing. It could happen again. We are negotiating against the same company, same people and same business model. The only good news is the environment favors us again this time. As for "negotiating to last place," all in can say is: Allegiant. So, second to last place
Aero1900 is offline  
Old 02-24-2023, 12:28 PM
  #47  
Slave
 
Joined APC: Oct 2016
Position: Hot tub
Posts: 1,341
Default

Originally Posted by Powderkeg View Post
Contrary to popular opinion I think this is something that needs to go. It’s a valuable piece of negotiating capital, and if the rates are high enough you’ll never notice. This would also drive more open time, more pilots required to staff the high utilization rates, and a QOL improvement for anybody that decided they could afford to work less.

Imagine a world in which you didn’t have to credit 100 hours a month with 12 days off to feel like you can buy a Miata that’s as nice as your neighbor’s that flies for Delta.
agreed! I don’t want to fly 70 …… keep your 1.25 above 82 and give me industry rates, 14 off on reserve, MUCH BETTER health care, profit sharing, 20% 401k, company paid FULL LTD, …….just to start.

but again “COMEDY 2023”

indigo won’t give ANYTHING until forced to do so……..
ReserveCA is offline  
Old 02-24-2023, 02:54 PM
  #48  
Lives in Base
 
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Posts: 399
Default

Originally Posted by ReserveCA View Post
agreed! I don’t want to fly 70 …… keep your 1.25 above 82 and give me industry rates, 14 off on reserve, MUCH BETTER health care, profit sharing, 20% 401k, company paid FULL LTD, …….just to start.

but again “COMEDY 2023”

indigo won’t give ANYTHING until forced to do so……..
If the pilot group wants 5/515 MDG, then that time needs to be tied to a reserve pilot too. If min guarantee is 75hrs divide by 5hr mdg = 15 reserve days worked per month. 15 off in a 30 day month, 16 in 31.

I agree with 1.25 over 82, no benefit to the pilot only management. I'll give that up. Outside of that, there's not much to give up. This pilot group is already lacking so much!
jpso is offline  
Old 02-24-2023, 03:04 PM
  #49  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,064
Default

Originally Posted by FlyingR6 View Post
I have a feeling we really need to beef up reassignment rules. The only reason we don't get thrown around like WN and DL is because we don't have the airplanes and route structure to support it logically. But, with every airplane we bring on, we getting closer to that reality.

Not a top line item for sure, but I feel like a worthy one.
Some of those pilots are getting ja while on a trip. That ability went alway with our last agreement. I’m not saying there’s no room for reassignment improvement. Right now there’s multiple grievances for reassignment. As they’re worked through it should become clear on language that needs solidifying going forward. It’s pretty much the toughest language of any contract to account for every scenario.
fcoolaiddrinker is offline  
Old 02-24-2023, 07:13 PM
  #50  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Posts: 617
Default

Originally Posted by fcoolaiddrinker View Post
Some of those pilots are getting ja while on a trip. That ability went alway with our last agreement. I’m not saying there’s no room for reassignment improvement. Right now there’s multiple grievances for reassignment. As they’re worked through it should become clear on language that needs solidifying going forward. It’s pretty much the toughest language of any contract to account for every scenario.
This is from one of the original copies of our contract, though I don’t believe any wording here was changed via LOA…

”If the Reassignment following a cancellation or removal occurs outside of the Pilot’s Domicile, the Reassignment must be scheduled within the Footprint of the originally scheduled Sequence; however, if the Reassignment occurs during the last Duty Period of a Pilot’s Sequence or at a point in time when, for reasons beyond the control of the Company, the Company cannot reasonably arrange for a Pilot to replace the Reassigned Pilot and/or return the Reassigned Pilot to Domicile, he will be returned to Domicile as soon as practical, at which point the Pilot will be released subject to the limitations of Paragraph R.2., below, if applicable.”

“For reasons beyond the control of the company” is a phrase we want eliminated in this sentence. It can literally mean anything. “Sorry, we are short staffed. Not our fault, we don’t have enough applicants and attrition is too high.” “Sorry, a plane broke in Denver yesterday and it’s had a ripple effect throughout our network.”

Our reassignment language is not good. When Delta gets reassigned it’s at 1.5x the greater of the 2 (original or new schedule). That’s pretty industry standard. At a minimum we need to add the 1.5x to all reassignments to help discourage them.

For those who say we don’t get reassigned much right now, it’s mainly because the company still hasn’t released the app which will trigger the contact-ability provision in our contract, which is this…

”A Pilot is not obligated to be continuously available during a Duty Period, but will respond to notification attempts, if any, within fifteen (15) minutes after Block In, or completion of duties relating to that flight. For international operations, station personnel will advise the crew if there is a message and provide a means to contact Crew Scheduling. The Pilot is not required to respond to notification attempts again until thirty (30) minutes prior to departing on their next segment.”
CantStayAway is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
White Cap
Cargo
49
09-26-2019 06:11 PM
Flyrr
Flexjet
20
04-30-2018 08:00 AM
jsled
United
7
11-28-2012 11:08 PM
ea500driver
Union Talk
26
06-26-2010 09:54 AM
BoredwLife
Major
1
07-16-2008 01:27 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices