AIP.
05-23-2018 | 06:48 AM
#441
Covfefe
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,001
Likes: 0
But doesn’t that argument go both ways?
Their rates on a ghost airplane(190) for them suck. Their rates on a real airplane for them(c series) are good.
Our rates on a ghost airplane(c series) are decent, and our rates for our real airplane are $40 more than theirs.
Now if you want to argue that the 195 and c100 should be paid the same, I agree with you, but unfortunately that’s not reality in the industry or with the mediator.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Their rates on a ghost airplane(190) for them suck. Their rates on a real airplane for them(c series) are good.
Our rates on a ghost airplane(c series) are decent, and our rates for our real airplane are $40 more than theirs.
Now if you want to argue that the 195 and c100 should be paid the same, I agree with you, but unfortunately that’s not reality in the industry or with the mediator.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Delta was never in negotiations with embraer and was never going to buy them. During their 2015 TA, Delta had 20 used air canada E190s on the table that boeing owned (as part of a deal Boeing and air canada previously made). During the AIP/TA voting period (about where we are now), Delta's CEO, Richard Anderson, said that the 20 used E190s and 50 737s were to be contingent on their TA (TA2015) vote. It got voted down, the order was canceled the next day, and they started negotiating again. Ironically, shortly after that order was canceled, orders for even more 737s, A321s, and 125 C Series was made. Just proves that pilots (and their votes) don't buy airplanes...executives do, regardless of how pilots vote.
05-23-2018 | 07:27 AM
#442
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
If anybody wants a good description of how we are in comparison to HA, SWA and AK, Read the arbitrators ruling for AK, and VA on their contract.
The court document is clear how we would be compared in the federal court system.
They put AK, SWA, and Hawaiian in a second tier below AA, Delta, and UAL. They, like JB don’t have a global network. They provide a niche in their part of the industry.
Even though it went to arbitration, the mediator saw us as a second tier based on that legal document. No matter what the MEC wanted, they were only going to get what is close to SWA, HA, and AK.
Vote YES, unless the TA is written poorly!
The court document is clear how we would be compared in the federal court system.
They put AK, SWA, and Hawaiian in a second tier below AA, Delta, and UAL. They, like JB don’t have a global network. They provide a niche in their part of the industry.
Even though it went to arbitration, the mediator saw us as a second tier based on that legal document. No matter what the MEC wanted, they were only going to get what is close to SWA, HA, and AK.
Vote YES, unless the TA is written poorly!
05-23-2018 | 07:32 AM
#443
Covfefe
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,001
Likes: 0
If anybody wants a good description of how we are in comparison to HA, SWA and AK, Read the arbitrators ruling for AK, and VA on their contract.
The court document is clear how we would be compared in the federal court system.
They put AK, SWA, and Hawaiian in a second tier below AA, Delta, and UAL. They, like JB don’t have a global network. They provide a niche in their part of the industry.
Even though it went to arbitration, the mediator saw us as a second tier based on that legal document. No matter what the MEC wanted, they were only going to get what is close to SWA, HA, and AK.
Vote YES, unless the TA is written poorly!
The court document is clear how we would be compared in the federal court system.
They put AK, SWA, and Hawaiian in a second tier below AA, Delta, and UAL. They, like JB don’t have a global network. They provide a niche in their part of the industry.
Even though it went to arbitration, the mediator saw us as a second tier based on that legal document. No matter what the MEC wanted, they were only going to get what is close to SWA, HA, and AK.
Vote YES, unless the TA is written poorly!
05-23-2018 | 07:57 AM
#444
Banned
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,445
Likes: 0
If anybody wants a good description of how we are in comparison to HA, SWA and AK, Read the arbitrators ruling for AK, and VA on their contract.
The court document is clear how we would be compared in the federal court system.
They put AK, SWA, and Hawaiian in a second tier below AA, Delta, and UAL. They, like JB don’t have a global network. They provide a niche in their part of the industry.
Even though it went to arbitration, the mediator saw us as a second tier based on that legal document. No matter what the MEC wanted, they were only going to get what is close to SWA, HA, and AK.
Vote YES, unless the TA is written poorly!
The court document is clear how we would be compared in the federal court system.
They put AK, SWA, and Hawaiian in a second tier below AA, Delta, and UAL. They, like JB don’t have a global network. They provide a niche in their part of the industry.
Even though it went to arbitration, the mediator saw us as a second tier based on that legal document. No matter what the MEC wanted, they were only going to get what is close to SWA, HA, and AK.
Vote YES, unless the TA is written poorly!
Vote NO
05-23-2018 | 08:05 AM
#445
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
You can armchair QB this deal all you want, but legally, we are now in line with those 3 airlines, and below the legacy ones. Every time the MEC has a demand, the company, in front of the mediator will reference the AK contract.
Until JB expands with a “Global” network, we will be recognized as a low-cost airline below SWA (9000 pilots), above HA (775 pilots), and AK ( 2000 pilots).
Nothing anybody can say, will make us look like a legacy airline, or present info to a mediator, or the company, to let us be rewarded like a legacy airline in our “FIRST” contract.
05-23-2018 | 08:24 AM
#446
Covfefe
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,001
Likes: 0
It doesn’t matter whether we have an arbitrator or not. Since the AK contract was published, a mediator will see it as a precedence set, and compare us to those airlines. The company will now see us as a second tier company based on that legal document too.
You can armchair QB this deal all you want, but legally, we are now in line with those 3 airlines, and below the legacy ones. Every time the MEC has a demand, the company, in front of the mediator will reference the AK contract.
Until JB expands with a “Global” network, we will be recognized as a low-cost airline below SWA (9000 pilots), above HA (775 pilots), and AK ( 2000 pilots).
Nothing anybody can say, will make us look like a legacy airline, or present info to a mediator, or the company, to let us be rewarded like a legacy airline in our “FIRST” contract.
You can armchair QB this deal all you want, but legally, we are now in line with those 3 airlines, and below the legacy ones. Every time the MEC has a demand, the company, in front of the mediator will reference the AK contract.
Until JB expands with a “Global” network, we will be recognized as a low-cost airline below SWA (9000 pilots), above HA (775 pilots), and AK ( 2000 pilots).
Nothing anybody can say, will make us look like a legacy airline, or present info to a mediator, or the company, to let us be rewarded like a legacy airline in our “FIRST” contract.
Your view of section 6 negotiations is flawed. That isn't how this works. There isn't a glass ceiling that we magically get to punch through once we get widebodies and become a global carrier. We go to 2 continents now with a lot of international destinations. HAL goes a lot of international far away places as well, but you classify them as our peer. They are a global carrier, just smaller. The legacies used to be our size, yet their pilots made (inflation adjusted and comparatively) a lot more money when they were our size. Just because we don't have 14000 on the list doesn't mean our per capita pay should be lower. We shouldn't get wide body rates, but no one is asking for that. When we get wide bodies, we can negotiate wide body rates based on wide body revenue and the market rate. Until then, our NB rates need to match our peers, our international override needs to match our peers, and our peers are the top 6, not the 4/5/6.
05-23-2018 | 08:29 AM
#447
Banned
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,445
Likes: 0
Are we "discount" or "tier 2" like Hercbubba believes?
We should see ourselves as more than that. A resounding NO vote would send a strong message as to who we are, and what we expect.
Vote NO.
05-23-2018 | 08:40 AM
#448
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
What does this avg 5hrs/ day mean for red eye turns? Would that now be 10 hours of pay?
Pretty disappointed with the AIP overall. Not horrible, but in this market when we have them up against the wall, I’m not impressed. I am impressed with management’s timing though. Right before the summer misery, right before we march on their doorstep in front of investors, right after Wall Street moves them down the list.
My biggest dilemma is just how much do we lose out on by renegotiating? What are the long term fallbacks of taking this shlt sandwich??
Pretty disappointed with the AIP overall. Not horrible, but in this market when we have them up against the wall, I’m not impressed. I am impressed with management’s timing though. Right before the summer misery, right before we march on their doorstep in front of investors, right after Wall Street moves them down the list.
My biggest dilemma is just how much do we lose out on by renegotiating? What are the long term fallbacks of taking this shlt sandwich??
Last edited by Bilbo T Baggins; 05-23-2018 at 08:55 AM.
05-23-2018 | 08:45 AM
#449
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
When SWA negotiated their contract...were they bound by HAL/ALK/VX rates? No...they surpassed them sharply. During DAL's negotiations were they bound by UAL/AA rates? No, they jumped way up. We aren't bound by our "peers," regardless of what an arbitrator used as a reference point when ruling on ALK. Their arbitrated rate isn't the end all be all or even remotely close to the deciding factor for our value. The company uses that line because it benefits them. We are worth what we negotiate.
Also, unless I see something really f’d up or that totally screws us, I’ll vote “YES”
Your view of section 6 negotiations is flawed. That isn't how this works. There isn't a glass ceiling that we magically get to punch through once we get widebodies and become a global carrier. We go to 2 continents now with a lot of international destinations. HAL goes a lot of international far away places as well, but you classify them as our peer. They are a global carrier, just smaller. The legacies used to be our size, yet their pilots made (inflation adjusted and comparatively) a lot more money when they were our size. Just because we don't have 14000 on the list doesn't mean our per capita pay should be lower. We shouldn't get wide body rates, but no one is asking for that. When we get wide bodies, we can negotiate wide body rates based on wide body revenue and the market rate. Until then, our NB rates need to match our peers, our international override needs to match our peers, and our peers are the top 6, not the 4/5/6.
Also, unless I see something really f’d up or that totally screws us, I’ll vote “YES”
Your view of section 6 negotiations is flawed. That isn't how this works. There isn't a glass ceiling that we magically get to punch through once we get widebodies and become a global carrier. We go to 2 continents now with a lot of international destinations. HAL goes a lot of international far away places as well, but you classify them as our peer. They are a global carrier, just smaller. The legacies used to be our size, yet their pilots made (inflation adjusted and comparatively) a lot more money when they were our size. Just because we don't have 14000 on the list doesn't mean our per capita pay should be lower. We shouldn't get wide body rates, but no one is asking for that. When we get wide bodies, we can negotiate wide body rates based on wide body revenue and the market rate. Until then, our NB rates need to match our peers, our international override needs to match our peers, and our peers are the top 6, not the 4/5/6.
Whether you or I want to think differently, the company, the mediator and the MEC are going to think of us as a peer to SWA, AK, and HA.
Until we get the global network to support higher rates on narrow body aircraft, we are stuck in a situation where 3 or 4 companies will determine our ticket prices based on competition. AA, Delta, and UAL can set our ticket prices, just as they set AK, and HA. Until we can influence the big 3 and SWA ticket prices, we will be considered a 2nd tier airline. Read the AK contract document from the arbitrator. It explains how they came to that conclusion based on prior negotiated contracts. (All based on AK being smaller than AA, Delta, UAL, and SWA)
Once something is legally published through the court of law, we are going to be held to that standard no matter what, right or wrong.
I’m not going to change your mind, but it doesn’t matter, because the company, mediator, and the MEC have a bar that is now set based on that document. I’m sure they all read it thoroughly too!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
