fcoolaiddrinker

Tying it to res would ensure it’s under thier control. Way More than it is now. I don’t really want to say much more and start negotiating in public. And we agree. No concessions. Nk drop to zero is tied to res coverage so imo trade to zero untied is better. We’ll see.

planejoe

It's going to be about a $65,000 gap for FOs between the new legacy deals and our current contract... for a couple years or longer? (and that is before all these deals start snapping up) Go ahead mgmt, take your time.

spooldup

Weird, cause most I fly with want to keep our QOL or get more drop than we have now.

Had some from my class who turned down DAL for our QOL.

That being said, no reason why us being $5-10 lower than a legacy is the reason someone is leaving. Most are leaving because "widebody" or "Frontier sucks as an operation". Fix the operation, have a decent contract, and people will stay.

JoeFever1

If only this wasn’t so complex and hard to figure out….

turbojet28

Exactly. I don’t think anyone is leaving for the $$ (yet). It’s all the other stuff - better management, more flying options, company prestige, etc. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - Frontier is going to have to greatly enhance and get creative with industry-leading QOL provisions if we truly want to stem attrition. They need to offer something that pilots can’t get somewhere else.

zooooropa

My old APC account died a looong time ago and it was attached to a dead email. I was fine with the idea of never posting again but I felt the need to add something to your definition of "concession".

Back when Frontier filed BK the company had a long list of asks/concessions. We didn't have any leverage so most of the "asks" became reality. Even then, add, drop, swap, survived Ch 11 BK. A few years later we were acquired and found ourselves in another restructuring, this time out of the courts. There was literally a "menu" of asks and we negotiated, debated, and fought for the CBA language we wanted to protect. At that time there was a bottomline $$$ we had to reach to avoid another BK filing. We hit that number by giving up pay, sick accrual, vacay accrual, freezing some seniority, as well as other concessions. We did not give up add, drop, swap.

To put it another way, we bought add, drop, swap by giving up real $$$ in several other areas of the contract. We now own add, drop, swap. We paid for it. It is ours. We didn't give it up in Ch 11. We didn't give it up during the RAH restructuring. We sure as heck should not give it up now. Again, those provisions haven't been lying their idly in the CBA they were literally protected via other significant contractual concessions. Somewhere I have a screenshot of the whiteboard that listed all of the "asks" and their monetary value. I'll see if I can dig it up.

If we give up ANY add, drop, swap under the guise of "industry standard" then we must recoup the concessions we gave up in our efforts to protect add, drop, swap multiple times in the past. Those concessions were significant. Finally, I will add a conversation I had with an involved party from another airline during the same exact time frame. They were asked for concessions, and they opted for a completely different strategy where they allowed the gutting of CBA language in exchange for smaller hourly rate cuts. That strategy didn't work out at all for that pilot group. My point is the existing CBA has been through quite the journey, and a lot of blood sweat and tears went into each letter of the CBA before our existing owners were even on property. I completely realize that is meaningless to them, but that doesn't make it meaningless. It is actually quite the opposite.

A concession is giving up anything. Period. Frontier pilots are experts in understanding concessions because we have been operating under a concessionary CBA (in some, way, shape or form) since 2008. Final final point, giving up quality of life items in exchange for higher rates is a complete and utter disaster of a strategy. Did the Union go to the company and ask for a hiring bonus/loan? No, the company was forced to incentivize applicants because the market forced their hand. The market will do the same with rates. Don't fall for the banana in the tail pipe. We should be looking to improve quality of life, not give it up. Rates will have to improve on their own. The two are not and should not be linked.

dracir1

This “flexibility” we have here allows for the potential to do a lot with our schedules. However, that flexibility is still somewhat controlled by mgt. Take this month for instance. Swapping trips is always allowed - but there are few if any trips that are worthwhile in open time. In fact, on the CA side, Den, DFW and TPA all have ZERO trips in open time. The other bases have trips that have been in open time for days sometimes weeks. What good is swap/drop with nothing (or sh!t) to replace it with?

Lets talk about drop. First of all, this applies only to trips (line holders) and is subject to a grid. The grid may be favorable one month but maybe not next. All rsv drops are subject to scheduling approval. One maybe two per month. When was the last time anyone got one of these approved? I’m not even sure they routinely approve rsv swap days?

let’s talk about trade. Again, on the CA side for this month there are 5 postings in DEN and 2 of those are guys looking to pickup only. ATL has 3 postings. Same for DFW. Ever other base has 2 or less postings. We don’t really trade trips here.

all these wonderful features that many seem to tout as reason for staying are fleeting and heavily dependent on how well the company schedules. If the pay rate were better, we’d have more people. More people means more flying. More flying means greater chance of actually using some of the flexibility.

HSCompressor

Regarding the email today from the union about the resignation of the rep from the SMS subcommittee.

I thought it was humorous. They didn't say where he's going, or why, but It's a photo of him in front AA HQ headquarters in Dallas.

Subtle.

HSCompressor

I'd add to this. I think most guys see the retirements as a known quantity. There's no guarantee of growth here. Not while the legacies have huge retirements. Leave now, depending on your age, you know you'll retire some high percentage. Stay at F9 where will you be in 30-40 years? For better or worse, who knows?

Also, I think for a lot of people there's still a lot of uncertainty about this company. I don't think we are going under, but I also don't think it's impossible either. But, some ppl seem more convinced.

dracir1

Yea exactly this. Aircraft orders DO NOT EQUAL growth. What good are a bunch of Neos and even XLRs if we grow 50 pilots a year?