No.
02-16-2021 | 03:38 PM
#341
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
So LOA 13 has been voted down. Seemingly, the sticking point is the possible outsourcing of our flying to American Airlines or a regional affiliate. The company has repeatedly told us that this will not happen, it is not the company’s intent, and it does not make economic sense for any of the parties involved. They will probably come back, bunny rabbit fast, with a new LOA that removes the 35% giveaway of FC to FC and FC to the Caribbean.
But wait...now stay with me for a minute. What happens if they come back to the table and they are still insisting on the 65/35 deal? Should we, as logical people, ask ourselves why they are so insistent on having this in the LOA? Why on earth would they risk having the next LOA voted down for something they have no intent to use?
But wait...now stay with me for a minute. What happens if they come back to the table and they are still insisting on the 65/35 deal? Should we, as logical people, ask ourselves why they are so insistent on having this in the LOA? Why on earth would they risk having the next LOA voted down for something they have no intent to use?
02-16-2021 | 03:47 PM
#342
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,088
Likes: 12
So LOA 13 has been voted down. Seemingly, the sticking point is the possible outsourcing of our flying to American Airlines or a regional affiliate. The company has repeatedly told us that this will not happen, it is not the company’s intent, and it does not make economic sense for any of the parties involved. They will probably come back, bunny rabbit fast, with a new LOA that removes the 35% giveaway of FC to FC and FC to the Caribbean.
But wait...now stay with me for a minute. What happens if they come back to the table and they are still insisting on the 65/35 deal? Should we, as logical people, ask ourselves why they are so insistent on having this in the LOA? Why on earth would they risk having the next LOA voted down for something they have no intent to use?
But wait...now stay with me for a minute. What happens if they come back to the table and they are still insisting on the 65/35 deal? Should we, as logical people, ask ourselves why they are so insistent on having this in the LOA? Why on earth would they risk having the next LOA voted down for something they have no intent to use?
If there is a LOA 14, I would be a little surprised if that aspect of the agreement was completely removed. If they come back to the table and only need to convince another 4% of the pilot group to vote yes, it’ll be a little carrot. Again, my opinion.
02-16-2021 | 03:59 PM
#343
New Hire
Joined: Feb 2021
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Oh I'm sure all those excess bodies will go to long call. Enjoy your summer
b . Monthly Reserve distribution
In each Bid Period, the Company shall determine the required number of Reserve lines subject to the following:
i . The Company shall award a minimum of thirty (30) percent Short Call Reserve lines in each Base and Status .
ii. The Company shall award a minimum of twenty-five (25) per- cent Long Call Reserve lines but no fewer than two (2) in each Base and Status .
iii . All Reserve lines in excess of the monthly Short Call Reserve Line requirement shall be Long Call Reserve lines .
b . Monthly Reserve distribution
In each Bid Period, the Company shall determine the required number of Reserve lines subject to the following:
i . The Company shall award a minimum of thirty (30) percent Short Call Reserve lines in each Base and Status .
ii. The Company shall award a minimum of twenty-five (25) per- cent Long Call Reserve lines but no fewer than two (2) in each Base and Status .
iii . All Reserve lines in excess of the monthly Short Call Reserve Line requirement shall be Long Call Reserve lines .
02-16-2021 | 04:05 PM
#344
Line Holder
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
They are moving forward with this thanks to LOA 12. I hope your happy that you can say you voted “no” because that’s all we will have. And yes I would rather have something than nothing. Oh but wait the arbitrators will make a small fortune off this and if we are lucky we will have LOA 13 forced on us thru arbitration, if we aren’t lucky they will implement there plan and we will have nothing. But hay we still have our pride..
02-16-2021 | 04:07 PM
#345
On Reserve
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
The big issues is FC to FC, and FC to international. With the iron clad scope we still have, what would it take for the company to change the FC? From my reading of the contract nothing, hell they did it already this year LGB to LAX. Do we as a pilot group have any say where we are based? Honest question? Could they simply just move all our bases to satellite airports (HPN, PBI,...) and we “limo” everywhere.
02-16-2021 | 04:17 PM
#346
Line Holder
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
I disagree. I don't think any of the no voters were on the fence. It is a nice thought to think WC will get fired over this for not throwing in PS. As if that would have taken it over the line LOL.
02-16-2021 | 04:25 PM
#347
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 215
Likes: 11
Great to know some people will vote yes just on the hope there’s more flying so they can pick up and make extra. Because living at min guarantee is “just getting by”. Yup thank you being so short sighted you’re willing to give up scope so you can pick up an extra trip so you can “bank”. Smfh sad to see how close this was to passing.
02-16-2021 | 04:25 PM
#348
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,630
Likes: 15
From: blueJet
Then you could have voted no, since none of that was promised in LOA 13. The growth requirement was three additional pilots, hardly growth. VPLOAs, EIL and VIL lines were detailed but with the execution “at company’s sole discretion” these benefits have no negotiation value. The TLV/ALV changes are minimal. Not sure why any of these are worth the ten year scope sale.
02-16-2021 | 04:30 PM
#349
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2020
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
From: Airbus 320 Left
I don't think you understand the difference between arbitration of a grievance and a lawsuit or bankruptcy judge ruling. The arbitrator simple interprets the meaning behind the contract. LOA 13 makes it pretty clear what to company wanted to change the language too, because it wasn't. Now if this was a judge making a ruling he/she could say "Due to these unprecedented times the company really needs this relief so I award......" If the company takes us into bankruptcy they can get a judge to do what they want. The arbitrator will say it's clear that this is what was intended when the CBA was written so the company must immediately cease and desist from this current/future planed scope violation.
Last edited by Descendto450; 02-16-2021 at 04:42 PM.
02-16-2021 | 04:31 PM
#350
New Hire
Joined: Feb 2021
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Then you could have voted no, since none of that was promised in LOA 13. The growth requirement was three additional pilots, hardly growth. VPLOAs, EIL and VIL lines were detailed but with the execution “at company’s sole discretion” these benefits have no negotiation value. The TLV/ALV changes are minimal. Not sure why any of these are worth the ten year scope sale.
