Random question about your horrible contract at RAH: can cancellations take you below guarantee for the month?

 

nbecca welcome! ATC, really thinks that FAPA and F9 pilots are the enemy. Words like Steamroll(when of course IBT had RAH pilots on top of the list). Again, I have to state we were willing to have an integration and in IBT true fashion all or nothing tactics. The other hypocritical thing was the ability to have our own local or the ability to coexist. You allowed our FA's who are AFA and RAH FA's who are IBT coexist, why can't we do the same? Of course, I cannot wait to hear the answers why were not allowed any of these two options?
ATC and your answer is?

 

Cancellations will reduce you to guarantee but not below it.

 

Does anyone know who the 1 (one) member pilot was that at membership-only meeting on Monday in DEN? I guess there was no one that showed at the non-member meeting. Then, no one at F9 remembered the monthly meeting on Tuesday, so no meeting that day. That's a pretty sad turnout based on the events we're going through. you would think lots of pilots would have questions? I wonder what that whole worthless journey cost?

 

With this low level of participation by the rank and file, while going through Mediation, Lynx grievances, Frontier in general, litigation involving FAPAInvest, possible Release and strike, it seems that the RAH pilots will reap what the sow.

The title of this thread, sadly enough, ought to be "What have you done for the IBT lately?" The strike vote was a nice message but this thing will die a long, slow death if the Membership depends on the seven EBoard members and their volunteers and Attorney (singular).

You have got to find a way to get more pilots involved, instead of just posting on your message board, 90% of which posts are made by ~5% of the membership.

Is everyone just waiting for a chance to get out to the Majors or do they just not care? It's time for everyone to step it up a notch, quit worrying about what level of Non-357 endorsed work action and join the fray.

If I were Management, I'd look at the number of picketers and the membership participation (or lack thereof) in determining my Mediation/Negotiation strategies. If no one cares enough to actually join in, than I would continue sending Negotiators that can't make decisions and drag the process out for as long as I can.

Does anyone in upper Management at 357 (or any RAH pilot) have a theory as to why more pilots aren't joining in?

 

IBT has a number of Joint Councils and had two fine examples presented to them at the time. Atlas and Polar had two separate EBoards (endorsed by IBT) until their merger was complete and the IBT worked with Gate Gourmet to allow them to have an actual voice in their future.

We were close to an agreement on a Joint Council after one meeting with the Aviation Division, then out of the blue, the IBT cancelled the next meeting, giving no reason for doing so.

Imagine how things could have worked out if FAPA and 357 had come to an agreement, instead of forcing the Frontier pilots into 357. We very well may have achieved "one list, one voice" to the benefit of all parties involved.

Now we have nothing but animosity and endless bickering. Very few Frontier pilots have joined 357, we can't accomplish anything because of LOA 69 between FAPA (the legal representative at the time) and Frontier Airlines which limits participation in Scheduling and Hotel Committees and System Board of Adjustment for the Frontier pilots to being limited to Frontier pilots.

The IBT, for some reason, believes this is an illegal LOA even though it was legally negotiated between FAPA (the legal representative at the time) and Frontier.

The IBT has also taken FAPA's 1,200 hours of Flight Pay Loss annually hostage and would apparently rather spend 357 member's dues than release those hours to Frontier pilot preforming duties on behalf of Frontier pilots.

That's a serious waste of money, of which 90% (roughly) is paid by "native" RAH pilots. I'd be p***ed if 357 had and continues to waste my money unnecessarily while paying two assessments. 357, to add salt to the wound, even charges (or attempts to charge) Frontier pilots an assessment for Flight Pay Loss while our 1,200 hours just sits there being used for nothing.

That is somewhere between $135,000 and $200,000, or more, that is being wasted by 357 every year, just to prove a point, although I'm not sure what that point is. I'd guess you pay Wilder in the neighborhood of that amount, so if 357 used, instead of squandered, the FLP, there would be no need for the second assessment. It's only money though.....

 

Maybe we are too busy flying 18 days a month for 36.62/hr and trying to support our family while commuting to the 5th base we were displaced out of to spend our only day off standing around being ignored by the NMB and management. All because of a 8 year old ****ty contract that should have been replaced 4 years ago but management wants to draw it out as long as they can because they gain NOTHING from a new one.

 

I feel your pain regarding your schedules, pay and displacements, but you're making my point. Everyone is just "too busy" to participate in the process, so the process just drags on and on. This isn't easy, it takes time, unity, PARTICIPATION and respected "experts." If RAH Management doesn't like or trust your current experts, get some new ones that will tell them the same thing, perhaps in a way they can understand it more clearly.

As far as Management gaining nothing from a new contract, that is the salesmanship part of negotiations. You don't tell the company what to do, you just make it financially prohibitive for them to do what you don't want them to do.

You show them how a new contract would benefit them as far as productivity, morale, more efficient operations and customer care. That takes a discussion about what each side hopes to achieve and the possible solutions vs sliding proposals back and forth across the table.

This works better when you open all articles of your contract so there's room for "horse-trading", I don't know how, or if, it will work with just 4 articles in play. Why not open the entire CBA to Section 6 negotiations? That would open up more room to work together on the contract you deserve and remove some of the limits you face in negotiating just 4 articles.

Who made the decision to negotiate just these 4 articles?

I never thought I'd say this, but you may benefit from taking advantage of the free, government run Interest Based Bargaining (IBB) class and methods of obtaining a contract. You don't have to be bound by the entire IBB process, unless both sides agree to it, but, at this point, it can't really get any worse, can it?

 

I'm sure that if the positions were paid like they were under FAPA things would be different. Collecting 2 paychecks must be pretty nice right? Then again, the company is quite stingy in releasing pilots for UBUS anyway making it harder still. Since F9 pilots are typically NOT members in good standing, why would IBT pay them? The IBT has committees like hotel and scheduling and such so why waste money on parallel committees? Opening al the sections NOW would be a problem since we have only been working on the 4. I imagine it would start everything back at square one which would CERTAINLY make things go on longer. It's funny you mention "morale" as a potential improvement. RAH does not care about morale. RAH doesn't care about promises made on a TV program. RAH does not care about increasing wages under reasonable methods... no raise for captains? Only captain raise would be based on profitability metrics that RAH has never obtained? Really? That's good faith and reasonable? As far as the LOA lawsuit, you can't create something that repeatedly modifies contract terms unless it is with the bargaining representative. joint councils would not have worked here and RPC was a scam... I starting to repeat myself from before...

nbecca you have a low post count so i would guess you were here before under a different name? i doubt that any of these posts are new to you. Heck, most of them are just repeated over and over creating thread drift.

 

So joint councils can work for the FA's but not the pilots? Gate Gourmet and IBT? Polar and Atlas?
LOA 67 was under FAPA, when we were the negotiating union. What is illegal about that?
What was the participation for members in good standing last week? 1!
For the open meeting? 0!
Enough said!