Interesting to hear you say that....What specifically are you referring to?

Well, not sure what to say. All I posted was facts, never said my position. Facts tend to make people upset when they don't agree with things in black and white.

Soft money? O- the 100% CX pay? That's enough to cover a viagra Rx to keep it hard money. There is NO other soft money, all hard and small- but size doesn't matter right?

Well I'm not upset at all and never will be. I knew what I was getting into. I would suspect that this is your first real job and expect you to be elsewhere when the industry starts to pick up. I suggest you get your PIC time and move on up. Did you get hired with low time or did you have 3000 hours? Not sure but I suspect you were a very low time guy? I really don't have to know your position to figue it out. What about Block or better? How about 75% deadhead pay you will receive. Weather you like it or not get a pay raise. I recommend you look real hard at what you are suggesting others to do by your hints. Wether you believe it or not thats what you are doing. Give it a rest and have fun looking at the TA. By the way Viagra didn't realize a guy at your age needed that? LOL! Just a little advice from someone who had a career pryer to this. I do agree the industry is a mess. Never seen anything like it. However it is one of easiest jobs I've ever had.:)

Nope, not a low-timer but didn't have the 3000 hours prior. Haven't hid my times since day one- go back about 900 posts and I was in many of the new hire and hiring discussions.
DH pay still below the peers in the group (both DCI and 50/76 seat regionals).
Don't need viagra, although I think sometimes the wife would appreciate it if I could keep things cool for a night.

I have vented about problems with this TA, but have backed up my frustrations with charts, graphs, language, etc. The facts speak for themselves before I even put in my $.02 . As soon as the TA becomes public I will post specific charts and language that relates to healthcare that is NOT industry leading anymore as well as some of the positive language we have on leaves, and still the lacking areas pertaining to retirees and new borns. It's not all negative, there is some positive, but OVERALL we can no longer hold our hat on healthcare as a great thing compared to the industry.

If you look at my posts I say in almost every one to look at the contract through YOUR eyes and make YOUR decision. Those walking around just looking at a payrate may be surprised when their math of 75X new rate vs. 75X old rate doesn't add up due to deductions that have increased- and not linear with pay raises. Once the TA is out I hope everyone reads it cover to cover and assesses where they stand and if they can live with it for 5+ years, especially compared to their peers at other carriers doing the same job for the same "majors".

If you look at my posts I say in almost every one to look at the contract through YOUR eyes and make YOUR decision. Those walking around just looking at a payrate may be surprised when their math of 75X new rate vs. 75X old rate doesn't add up due to deductions that have increased- and not linear with pay raises. Once the TA is out I hope everyone reads it cover to cover and assesses where they stand and if they can live with it for 5+ years, especially compared to their peers at other carriers doing the same job for the same "majors".[/quote]

Well, that's all I'm saying before you state your opinion you should allow others to formulate their opinion based on what they have interpeted not how you have interpeted. It doesn't matter what kind of graph you have it is still an opinion not a fact. Nothing is an absolute in the life and a contract for sure isn't, so with that being said keeping hints to ones self is sometimes the best way to go. Good luck to you in your future endevours and I wish you all the best.

If you really do the numbers, it is concessionary to everyone.

The "new" payrates are basically COLA (3%) for the last 5 years (no DOS increase). For the mid pack pilots, there is 2-4 bucks/hour for the 5 year wait. Those 12 years or better back in '04 are now screwed. They cap at 18 years and if they would received JUST the COLA (3%) for the last 5 years they would be making more.

Depending on the "retro" check, it may not cover the DOS pay loss for the last 5 years except for the wh*res that did better than 1000 hours credit (based on a W2 model).

The combined COLA and DOS was about 6% annually, you are getting 3% and a couple of bucks looking forward. There is NO pay increase to speak of, it is not like the compensation picked up like the last 5 years didn't happen. The compensation for a 8 yr CA (with COLA and DOS) should be 76.00+. The new rates are $72. It is actually worse for the top 5% of the sen list, they are really getting hosed if they are still on the -200.

Do not vote on money alone, look at the whole package. If it is shot down by the pilots, you need to be specific of what needs to be improved and you should not JUST say $$$

I would say ASA + $1 or a "No" vote. Let's take a step toward ending the whipsaw.

my issue isn't with the payrates, they're actually dead average...it's the rest of the contract that puts us below average...

Just wondering...are you in management already, or just making an effort to brownnose your way in?

I have issues other than pay also but don't say that they are average......not on the FO side anyway. Well below other carriers that fly more than one airframe. Average 2nd year should be around 34-35. We should have been above this. 31 is a slap in the face.

If the rates are not at least at ASA levels..... thats pathetic.

31 an hour 2nd year is what many carriers are getting NOW... on contracts signed over 5 years ago........

...and more than 10% less than other carriers with contracts signed 5+ years ago...

Not at all. If anything I'm just a guy who likes money now versus later. I'm what you would call a realist. Sometimes I think pilots are real stupid. Just my opinion. I have been around a while and know that if it is pushed further everything could be lost and I don't want that to happen. Everyone has to wake up and smell the coffee. LOL! Any money you can get now is better than later, just pure economics 101. Not saying that it could be better, it sure could, but I'll take what I can get.;)

wow you really have no idea what you are talking about. Higney is one of the few that uses fact and tells people to actually read the TA.

so a $2 raise now is better than a $4 raise we might get in 6 months that will have to last us for the next 10 years?:confused:

I've been around a while too and know that WE HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE.

it's easy to sit behind a management desk and troll the internet, I agree! :D

Those that can't debate on the facts do usually insult the person and then "ignore".

You prove that you know NOTHING about bargaining under Section VI or the RLA. Once a section is TA'd you can't just open it and offer something regressive. That IS the definition of bad faith bargaining.

No just go back to ignoring me. I'm not going anywhere though.

Since you're eating crow and handing out apologies, I'll take one too.

My fear is that we reject this, and it takes 2 more years to get a new TA. The money lost over the next 2 years won't make up for another $1 an hour.
Signing bonuses never make up for $ lost.
Higney, it looks like the company wants us to have a new contract (new RFP's?). How long do you think it would take to get a new TA?

Hades will freeze over first John.

Second,
It is not regressive or bad faith bargaining that once a TA is rejected by a pilot group to open up any and all sections. All past precedents cannot be used by either side to show regressive positioning by the other side. While not widely used it is plausible.

Admit your wrong and maybe Hades will start to freeze. But you first.

You really need how to learn how to read. Once the TA is rejected the TA is no longer considered a Tentative Agreement(TA) by the NMB, or either party. There is only the blueprint for both parties to hopefully work to a solution. Accepted past practice no longer takes precendent in negotiations. Hence Section VI (the clauses and definitions pertaining to regressive positions or "bad faith bargaining" as defined by the NMB, the courts, and generally accepted by both party's) of the RLA do not apply.

Here is a benign example:
9E mgt states they want to reopen Insurance section of contract. While currently maintaing status quo under current contract they propose a 75% increase in deductibles, and 150% increase in insurance copayments for the new contract. Regardless of past positions (let's state for the example that previously agreed TA section had 5% increase in deductible and 10% increase in copayments) and while its dirty pool (in my view) this cannot be considered bad faith bargaining.


Both parties in this case would go back to mediation.

Has the TA been sent to the pilot group to view yet?

SE says this afternoon we should have something to read.

Also, PNCL stock 7.11 up almost 5 dollars in a month.

Hate is bad for the soul Selcall. Learn to let go of the hate.

That is a terrible attitude to have, you might need to live with this contract for 10 years. Even if it takes a few extra months or even a year to get right you should get it right. There are other regionals that pay more than your airline, you should be striving to meet the top pay scales or better, not settling for something that is industry average. Aim high and try and set the bar high, don't settle for something medicore just to get money a few months earlier.

You've been fighting for years for this new contract, what's a few extra months to get it right?

I do not know how long it would take to re-negotiate the TA for a "new" one. Honestly- I won't even put out an idea. I would put out that from talking with people who can quote the RLA verbatim and have studied past contract history, things typically get lumped into a couple of items.

For example (hypothetical):
Let's say we DO vote this TA down by a strong majority and the MEC reconvenes and says, "ok, here are the problem areas".

1. No trip/duty or min day (scheduling)
2. 401K match is far below everyone (retirement)
3. payrates are too low (compensation)
4. perdiem too low compared to peers (compensation)
5. Healthcare costs rising (insurance)
6. only 10 days off instead of 11/12.


That's 6 things in this hypothetical. We would prob only get 2 items fixed, so you would "lump". Scheduling would need at least a duty rig and min day (there's 1). 401K, payrates, extra day off, perdiem, and insurance costs= how much does that equal a month?

Well....
401K is off by 3%
extra day off? well that's at least the cost of a min day ($$ terms)
Perdiem- well that's $.10/hr
Insurance- well that's $1/hr more for an average family (just throwing a random number, but not too far off if I did some calculating).

Add it all up and it's about 6% of compensation- so let's put it on the payrate only.

Now you would have a rig, min day, and good pay rates- which is a "bandaid" and still keeps the average down in other areas for other carriers AND our negotiations down the line, but add 5-6% to our pay rates and a basic rig/min day and I guarantee pilots would change the tune. I am not a negotiator and this is a hypothetical. Of course I would LOVE to open up every section that isn't great, but then the company will open up the things that we are already thrilled with (yes, there are some positives).

There will never be a contract that everyone thinks is great- even at the industry leaders (major and regional) pilots complain about areas that lack, but we ARE labor and we really can't become ubber expensive because it ruins the business model. That being said we CAN and SHOULD be on par with our peers in overall compensation, QOL, and safety (scope/insurance/leaves). It is up to management and the labor groups to ensure performance. We will still have issues with vacation slide, min day off, 401 match, no profit sharing, DH pay, etc.

Think big picture. There is a time value to money for everyone- a $2 raise now would need a $4 raise in 6 months to recoup in a year to even, numbers grow as time under the 99 contract continues. That being said waiting 6mo for a contract and getting 5-6% more pay overall, at 5 years (with compounded COLA increases) the overall compensation is a MAJOR difference for a positive and increases the industry for even higher gains in 5-10 years when the next deal is done.

When the TA becomes available, read it all. I will be posting on the company board the specific differences (both positive and negative) for Retirement/insurance and leaves to also show where we compare with the industry. Many pilots here have never even looked at these sections and may not even understand what they are reading- it can be difficult to understand. Facts are very important to use as YOUR starting point when looking at the contract. The message board will have each person with a personal bias- which is fine, but get your own base line.

it is safe to say to renegotiate a whole new t/a (keeping only the sections that don't need to change) should take at least 2 years. Some sections the company and the union agreed to quickly, I can see that happening a second time. It will come down to probably 9-12 sections that will have to be brought back for tweaking.

You have to remember, Nonconnah now answers to the BOD and the stock holders. They have a risk as well, it is not like '99 where they only had to answer to NWA.

It should be interesting over the next week or two how the pilot group accepts the TA and how the road shows pan out. The most entertaining road show should be DTW with both rep's voting the TA down.

I think the most intersting will be MEM where both reps voted yes and the CA rep. is in the middle of a recall. Both have said they woudn't run again anyways, so their repersentation of the MEM group will definatly create some fireworks.

I may be off, but aren't both MEM reps CA's anyway?

Attitude Nah just a realist. Look at the climate of the economy. I'm not settling. I do want to read it. The thing that I'm pointing out is that we can assume anything , but until we look at it then decide. No attitude behind it just open minded.:cool:

Yes, The CA rep is currently under a recall vote, The FO rep is also a negotiator. I think MEM would be the most heated out of all three. DTW seems to be under control, ATL is all in one boat, and MSP is a split so it should be a balanced presentation IMO. I guess all we can do is wait and see the actual TA and the many many pages of message board "discussion" to follow.

They are both captains, but only the captain rep is being recalled as far as I know. Since no FO ran in the last election a captain is representing the FO's in MEM, bet that won't happen again anytime soon...

I know their will be at least 1 FO stepping up to do it if nobody else is nominated. It's a high hope of mine that there are FO's who are on the outside looking in that want to get involved.

So are the details of the TA out yet?

Nope. Last I heard was Monday afternoon...Clocks tickin' ;)

FWIW.... after all the years you have been in negotiations.... if the pilots vote this down... my personal belief is that the union should go to the NMB and have things declared an enpass.... with a 30 day cooling off period ... followed by a strike if no progress is made. A strike is the ONLY thing at this point that will get you something even close to what you should be looking to get. Five years is tooo long...if they were willing to pay more without the possibility of a strike they would have. Push for "self help" if this TA fails... and if it passes... you have no one to point the finger at but yourselves... good luck.

Its going to pass....sadly.

A strike will not happen, it is killer for both sides, especially in this economic climate. I don't know if the ASA was rewritten, but back under NWA they had the "comair clause". If 9E struck and they were unable to launch X amount of flights they had to surrender X% of airframes, each successive period that did not meet the minimum amount of flights the more airframes they lost. Basically after 21 days 9E would almost cease to exist.

Therefore, if the union takes a protracted strike position, they lose airframes and jobs, if the company allows the strike to be protracted they lose the airframes business. Since DAL owns NWA, those -200 airframes are DAL and everyone knows there are enough DCI carriers that would kill to get more airframes at the expense of another DCI competitor.

I don't see a strike, too much to lose for both sides, especially with DCI decreasing schedules. NO one would win.

So where is the TA? I thought it was supposed to be out by this afternoon.

Expect an executive summary this week, language is still being finalized in some areas. These guys are working beyond hard to get this done- give em some slack. The signing bonus is still being worked on as well since the last w-2 method got sent out the door. Lots going on.