Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
CVG roadshow notes and observations >

CVG roadshow notes and observations

Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

CVG roadshow notes and observations

Old 05-31-2012, 04:06 AM
  #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
CVG767A's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Position: 767ER capt
Posts: 1,190
Default CVG roadshow notes and observations

I went to the CVG roadshow yesterday; it was the best attended ALPA meeting I've attended since C96. Tim O at the center, flanked by the four members of the Negotiating committee, as well as the (I believe) legal counsel from ALPA national. Not really much information that hasn't been seen/ posted before, but a lot of misinformation dispelled. A lot of the background information that ACL has posted. A few notes in very random order (with my comments in parentheses):

-Cost of this contract is $420 million. This was vehemently challenged by several in the group, citing the Detroit rep's widely known assertion that this is a cost-neutral contract. Tim stated that the cost-neutral statement was mostly for Wall St., and that a cost neutral claim would have to include the added revenue from both the CRJ900s and the 717s. There would be no other way to get to that number.

-Airtran pilots with 717s? NO, says Tim O. He said we're getting the planes from Boeing; they don't have many pilots... He also said that we will get the same number of pilots with the 717s as we got with the MD90s.

-The time sensitivity of the deal is being driven by major maintenance on the CRJ200s. Once Delta puts the money into them, they'll be around for a while. They had a chart with the RJ counts, both with and without the TA.

-Re caving on the number of 76 seaters: This is seen as the only way to get rid of the 50 seaters ahead of schedule, given the contracts we have with various regional carriers. Large RJ outsourcing is a part of Smisek's proposal at UCAL, Parker's proposal to the AMR guys, and AMR's 1113 term sheet.

-As far as ALPA knows, no deals have yet been inked with any RJ manufacturers regarding a large RJ. (I can't imagine that we don't have agreements in principle, though.)

-We will not be seeing any survey results. First, we may be entering Section 6 negotiations. Second, we don't want to let management see our playbook, even after the game.

-35% of new hires from DCI? New hires have been nearly 50% of our most recent new hire classes. This item required no negotiating capital, and was thrown in there in the hopes of getting an improved hiring policy for our furloughees from regional carriers. It will also provide a means of mitigating the effects of the unemployment among regional pilots that our agreement will cause. (I'm a little fuzzy on this one still. They may need some follow-up questioning.)

-250 early outs are being targeted by the retirement program. (While they assured us that management's feet would be held to the fire if they try to shut off the program with too few retirees, I would prefer firm numbers in the TA.)

-ALV +15. This is primarily to allow greater reserve utilization in categories that have mostly long international trips. (...but will crew scheduling run with this for all categories? Of course they will.)

-Surprisingly (to me, anyway), was their contention that the new reserve rules will not translate to less pilots on reserve. Scrappy (negotiator/ former scheduling committee) explained how higher reserve flying will increase numbers of reserves required under the manning formula. (Greek to me.)

-During the Q&A, a lot of anger in the group that MD88/90 pay wasn't raised to equal A320 pay (despite an 8% pay increase to MD90 rates). Tim countered with a discussion about a line with seats vs. pay, and some aircraft sitting above or below that line (i.e. 747, 757). This one wasn't even on the negotiators' wishlist, which upset some of the crowd.

-The handout section regarding pay shows monthly pay at 87 hours. This item was noticed by the audience, and the BS flag was (rightly) raised. They assert that the average monthly credit is 87 hours. (This has got to be caused by some outliers in international categories, that are able to really run up their time. I hope they change this in future handouts.)

-The last thing on the table was more seats on the RJs (Tim said 80 seats; did he mean 82?). The company offered to give all of the projected revenue to us in the form of pay.

-A wide body aircraft order is not under discussion at this time.

-If we turn down the TA, they have no idea where things will go from there. If we enter Section 6, we can expect fairly strong headwinds. The Section 6 process is, by it's nature, more friendly to management. We will be negotiating against a backdrop where UCAL, AMR, and USAirways make less than us already. The NMB will not be sympathetic to us.

-Q&A session was very contentious, with 90% of the pilot angst focusing on the proposed pay rates. (I left after 2 hours of questioning; I'm not sure what was discussed afterward)
CVG767A is offline  
Old 05-31-2012, 04:12 AM
  #2  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
CVG767A's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Position: 767ER capt
Posts: 1,190
Default

I'll add that after talking to my reps and Tim O., I plan to vote yes on this TA. I think the downside of a no vote (potentially extended Section 6 negotiations, with questionable gains) far outweigh the potential gains. The fairly short duration of the contract is the only thing that makes the pay rates palatable.

I don't want to encourage anyone to vote my way. What I would encourage is that you go to the road show, listen to what they have to say (Yes, they will be blowing some sunshine up your skirt.) Ask the hard questions, and demand answers.

Fire away!

Last edited by CVG767A; 05-31-2012 at 04:27 AM.
CVG767A is offline  
Old 05-31-2012, 04:22 AM
  #3  
On Reserve
 
Elvis90's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MSP7ERB
Posts: 1,886
Default

Thanks for the update CVG. Good info.
Elvis90 is offline  
Old 05-31-2012, 04:27 AM
  #4  
veut gagner à la loterie
 
forgot to bid's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Default

-ALV +15. This is primarily to allow greater reserve utilization in categories that have mostly long international trips. (...but will crew scheduling run with this for all categories? Of course they will.)

-Surprisingly (to me, anyway), was their contention that the new reserve rules will not translate to less pilots on reserve. Scrappy (negotiator/ former scheduling committee) explained how higher reserve flying will increase numbers of reserves required under the manning formula. (Greek to me.)
He he he. The more we can get out of a single reserve.. the more reserves we need!

forgot to bid is offline  
Old 05-31-2012, 04:59 AM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
NuGuy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,823
Default

No plan B if the TA is rejected? AND THEY ADMITTED THIS IN AN OPEN MEETING?

What an abject failure of leadership. What's the point of having MEMRAT, then?

If this is really the case, then the meetings are pure FUD, and must be put in that context.

Even if your "strategic planning" is really that poor, why would you advertise it to management?

The reason their average line value is skewed is because they don't include any lines under 70 hours in their calculations. So with %50 of the airline getting 68 hour lines from PBS the last 8 months, yea, that's a funny number.

Wow...I mean just wow.

Nu
NuGuy is offline  
Old 05-31-2012, 05:17 AM
  #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
vprMatrix's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 243
Default

CVG thanks for the update.

Here is my biggest problem with what you posted:

-Cost of this contract is $420 million. This was vehemently challenged by several in the group, citing the Detroit rep's widely known assertion that this is a cost-neutral contract. Tim stated that the cost-neutral statement was mostly for Wall St., and that a cost neutral claim would have to include the added revenue from both the CRJ900s and the 717s. There would be no other way to get to that number.

-The last thing on the table was more seats on the RJs (Tim said 80 seats; did he mean 82?). The company offered to give all of the projected revenue to us in the form of pay.
First there is no way to know or believe that the company would pass on the savings from outsourcing to the us.

Second, I am fundamentally opposed to supplementing my income off the back of other pilots by supporting a whipsaw system with multiple carriers (including other ALPA carriers) fighting for our scraps. I'm actually a little surprised TO admitted publicly that this is what we are doing.
vprMatrix is offline  
Old 05-31-2012, 05:27 AM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Default

Originally Posted by vprMatrix View Post
Second, I am fundamentally opposed to supplementing my income off the back of other pilots by supporting a whipsaw system with multiple carriers (including other ALPA carriers) fighting for our scraps. I'm actually a little surprised TO admitted publicly that this is what we are doing.
We aren't.

There are a lot of positive changes for Delta pilots inside Section 1. Scope for scope....substantial downside protections for Delta pilot jobs and limitations on management flexibility to not use Delta pilots throughout that section. There is a cost to that, and that cost depends on your point of view. How much do the furlough protections cost #1 CF?

Section 3 is another part of the contract.
slowplay is offline  
Old 05-31-2012, 05:40 AM
  #8  
Sho me da money!
 
FIIGMO's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: B25, Left
Posts: 947
Default

Originally Posted by vprMatrix View Post
CVG thanks for the update.

Here is my biggest problem with what you posted:



First there is no way to know or believe that the company would pass on the savings from outsourcing to the us.

Second, I am fundamentally opposed to supplementing my income off the back of other pilots by supporting a whipsaw system with multiple carriers (including other ALPA carriers) fighting for our scraps. I'm actually a little surprised TO admitted publicly that this is what we are doing.
I think that was the whole reason that DALAPA said no to increased seats on RJ's. We wanted scope capture and we did get it. Not as much as I wanted but we changed it for the positive. I am not sure i follow you here, but we feel bad about taking those jobs back and being proactive about being sure DCI alpa carries get a look at first for hire?

Vip I am just sure I did not follow your line of thought.

Fiig
FIIGMO is offline  
Old 05-31-2012, 05:43 AM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
CVG767A's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Position: 767ER capt
Posts: 1,190
Default

Originally Posted by forgot to bid View Post
He he he. The more we can get out of a single reserve.. the more reserves we need!
Yeah, I know... pretzel logic. It seems counter intuitive to me, as well, but I accepted it, given that Scrappy has been the MEC Schedule Committee guy for so long. I've have to admit that I didn't ask any clarifying questions on this item. This would be a good one to question at upcoming road shows.
CVG767A is offline  
Old 05-31-2012, 05:44 AM
  #10  
Back on TDY
 
Carl Spackler's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Default

Originally Posted by NuGuy View Post
No plan B if the TA is rejected? AND THEY ADMITTED THIS IN AN OPEN MEETING?

What an abject failure of leadership. What's the point of having MEMRAT, then?

If this is really the case, then the meetings are pure FUD, and must be put in that context.

Even if your "strategic planning" is really that poor, why would you advertise it to management?

The reason their average line value is skewed is because they don't include any lines under 70 hours in their calculations. So with %50 of the airline getting 68 hour lines from PBS the last 8 months, yea, that's a funny number.

Wow...I mean just wow.

Nu
Exactly!!!

Carl
Carl Spackler is offline  

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