Eagle TA
09-24-2012 | 05:40 PM
#353
Line Holder
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Pay banding is also a way for the entire bottom half of the list to get screwed over. I imagine if you're a senior EMJ Capt than this works out great for you.. a pay raise to 700 pay at everyone else's expense. That group is pretty much the only ones who want this. With this TA new upgrades will have to fly a 700/900 at turboprop pay (until they are gone) then EMJ pay. Total BS. Many Thousands of dollars lost for all future upgrades.. unless you are one of the lucky few at the top of the list.
Now let me refute some of your emotional responses: (and yes no need to use any bad words or tell me that I'm BSing you)
On the issue of pay-banding: (and for the record I don't like this at all)
I don't think that your MEC sat down and intentionally came up with this to screw (as you mention ) the entire bottom half. Your elected MEC once again tried to keep everyone at their current pay step instead of the 15 year pay step and the 5% paycut proposed on the 1113 . So lets examine this with our current seniority list:
Right now we have at least 836 pilots getting paid at or above pay step 15 and only 300 captains are getting paid CRJ rate many of them that are actually junior CA that will be red circled under the provisions of the TA. So if voting NO allows the company to impose its terms not a half of the pilots will get affected but a whole third currently there will in theory never see pay step 18. The negotiators also convinced the company with the idea that if pilots wouldn't seek the money there would be tons of savings on training cycles, displacements etc... (that is where the 30% 70% bucket comes from)
The option was all pilots would lose a week of vacation forever instead of only one year.
That owing the company is a bunch of horse sheit. We get our 1.5% yearly minimum raise no matter what with the current contract, doesn't matter if their BS calculation is negative.
There is no cash flow neutral, *** are you talking about? We are losing a guaranteed 1.5% raise in 2013 and a guaranteed 1.5% raise in 2014 with this TA proposal. There is no neutral there. Spin it however you like, it's a major loss of pay.
and I don't care if we are in bankruptcy, they still have to prove concessions are required before abrogating the contract. From form 10 filed by AMR: Past 5 years of Eagle showing profitable. I don't really care if they shifted money around, or cooked the books to make it just look like we're profitable . It is what it is, they filed it. Prove it's required in the 1113 hearings "if" they file.
There is no cash flow neutral, *** are you talking about? We are losing a guaranteed 1.5% raise in 2013 and a guaranteed 1.5% raise in 2014 with this TA proposal. There is no neutral there. Spin it however you like, it's a major loss of pay.
and I don't care if we are in bankruptcy, they still have to prove concessions are required before abrogating the contract. From form 10 filed by AMR: Past 5 years of Eagle showing profitable. I don't really care if they shifted money around, or cooked the books to make it just look like we're profitable . It is what it is, they filed it. Prove it's required in the 1113 hearings "if" they file.
Now this is from the same 10-K you have looked at: Page 33
American Airlines | Investor Relations | SEC Filings
I am not a forensic accountant but it is clear that AMR has always paid eagle a market rate for its feed but the overall cost of the operation will result in either a very small revenue or a loss. AMR has already proved it in court and that is why the judge granted the 1113 motion against the APA. Once again Ryan I don't like this reality but our company has been very inefficient for many years. Which is why where we are today. The judge knows it since he already saw the TWU filing which includes us in the 1700+ document.
I have read the LOI, Have you? Alpa will have virtually no control. The company has complete control to do whatever the hell they like with that language. How long have you been here? Have you heard the term "denied due to staffing"?
LOL.. Anyone who has worked for AMR for more than a day knows what this means to the company.. they will do whatever the hell they want and they will set staffing limitations to suit their wishes. PBS will be hell here with AMR running it. We will have 5-15% less staffing required. Many more Captain seats lost due to the reduced staffing required and we will lose a ton of pay vs the current system and lose more time off.. Again, PBS works out ok if you are at the top, everyone else is screwed.
LOL.. Anyone who has worked for AMR for more than a day knows what this means to the company.. they will do whatever the hell they want and they will set staffing limitations to suit their wishes. PBS will be hell here with AMR running it. We will have 5-15% less staffing required. Many more Captain seats lost due to the reduced staffing required and we will lose a ton of pay vs the current system and lose more time off.. Again, PBS works out ok if you are at the top, everyone else is screwed.
From the same LOI: (now keep in mind that no UNION out there controls schedules management always will) all they are trying to do is to have input since PBS is such a complex program the union needs and must be involved otherwise our QOL will indeed get affected. In my opinion that is what the LOI intends:
iii. Pairing generation and optimization ‐ The Company to control leg allocation process; ALPA to participate in pairing generation in conjunction with CrewPlanning.
1. As long as ALPA’s suggested pairing solutions meet the Company’s
targets to include but not be limited to: productivity, block hours per
duty period, TAFB hours, deadhead time, and total pilots required to fly the schedule, and the solution can be completed within the time limits required to meet the monthly bid process at no additional expense to the Company, ALPA’s solution will be used.
2. As long as ALPA’s suggested pairing solutions meet to a great extent the Company’s targets listed above, ALPA’s solution will be given serious consideration.
The two paragraphs are closely related, to use one and not the other is not a fact.
BS, obviously you aren't a senior FO. I get displaced ALL the time getting lines with IOE captains (out of my control). Now instead of usually getting 4 days off when this happens (current contract) I will be basically a reserve for each day of my sequence and have to commute out and buy tons of hotel rooms just because they wanted to screw with my schedule. Over the past year this would have given me about 20 days of reserve. A little more than inconvenient I would say. A major hit to QOL and more money out of my pocket.
We don't get any protection with it either.. it's pretty devious of the MEC and P2P reps running around touting all these job protections to the FO's trying to get them to vote yes.. especially when the ones at high risk (over a 1000 pilots) at the bottom of the list aren't even protected. Also our fleet plan is right there clear as day.. 2000 pilot airline.. people that think voting yes will get us more flying are delusional. They are outsourcing either way. It has already started. Read the letters put out by the company.. 135/140's gone soon too (JW letter). They ARE Diversifying.. If there was a guarantee to save our flying if we vote yes, it would be shown to us. Just like it was last year in the ASA in the old TA proposal. There is NO guarantee now with this TA. They are going to proceed with their plan to diversify regardless.
It is your opinion, and I respect that. That same letter from JM you mention also conveys the idea that they are trying to remind us that there are airlines out there that are willing to fly for a lot less than what we at Eagle (even with the TA ratified) will fly it for. However; the company knows that having a professional group pilots makes better business sense than a new unknown pilot group and management.
You also left out :
Longevity Benchmarking "If the pilot longevity benchmarking shows a pilot longevity disparity of more than $36.4M and the Company’s pre-tax, post-profit sharing profit margin is less than five (5%) percent on its flight operations, the pilot group will be liable for its actual pilot longevity"
This company manipulates #'s to their benefit at will. No way in hell O would agree to this, this will be another major pay loss in the future they are trying to hide in the bottom of this TA.
Longevity Benchmarking "If the pilot longevity benchmarking shows a pilot longevity disparity of more than $36.4M and the Company’s pre-tax, post-profit sharing profit margin is less than five (5%) percent on its flight operations, the pilot group will be liable for its actual pilot longevity"
This company manipulates #'s to their benefit at will. No way in hell O would agree to this, this will be another major pay loss in the future they are trying to hide in the bottom of this TA.
That only starts hearings and a 51 day clock. Also more money for lawyers and eventually us. They filed on the TWU in a week after they didn't ratify their TA. It is the same case since we are all under AMR the judge has already seen it all.
is a completely unacceptable duration, WAY too long for a concessionary get out of bankruptcy contract. NO guarantee's for us to keep doing our flying if we accept it. 8+ the standard 5yrs negotiations is 13 F-ing years to live with this trash in the biggest retirement age in aviation history. Pure stupidity to accept that kind of duration IMO.
You also just answered your previous statement, that is how the Longevity Benchmarking works. If people leave the company becomes junior. That is how your MEC was able to get credit on those savings. Be patient we will get our time when we actually drive the wages up, just not under bankruptcy protection.
Also Look what just happened to the other work groups that tried to play along with management, signed a concessionary TA and now 4400 more of them are going to be unemployed. Look how well that worked out for them. These people you are dealing with have no conscience. They will take your "yes" vote, pocket the cash and STILL screw you over. Don't think they won't. Sure, there is some risk in voting NO but they still HAVE to negotiate with us again if/when they file the 1113.
I don't have a comment on specific unions and their deals, but the APFA saved furloughs by voting in their TA; I'm sure not all unions will have the same result.
Fellow Pilots,
This afternoon I received a letter from Denise Lynn, American Airlines’ Senior Vice President-People, expressing the desire to re-engage in negotiations with APA. In response, I have scheduled a special meeting of the APA Board of Directors that will begin on Wednesday, Sept. 26 at 1 p.m. Central at APA headquarters to discuss management’s invitation and determine APA’s next steps.
Thank you for your support. We will continue to update you as developments warrant.
In unity,
Keith Wilson
APA President
Im glad many of us here at Eagle and APA are actually willing to stand up for ourselves and the profession in the face of this sham bankruptcy. I'd rather get a 1113 forced on me short term and renegotiate out of bankruptcy than VOLUNTARILY bend over, cower in the corner and take this crappy deal for over a decade with no real business plan in place and absolutely no guarantee's for Eagle's future shown to us.
My No vote has been processed.
My No vote has been processed.
Thank you for caring.
09-24-2012 | 06:21 PM
#354
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
From: B737 /FO
I believe this company does run inefficiently. But cost and efficiency are two different things. Having that one extra ramper, better trained gate agent/crew scheduler, crew planning, benefit package, computer system that tracks and correlates equipment and crews and a corporate culture that rewards proactive workers and teamwork...those are elements of genuine business plan change.
You can cut pay, vacation and benefits every other year, but it will not build a decent product. All the Eagle TA accomplishes is ****ing people off for longer. You will get more people milking the clock and more Alpha 3s. There are already a few people put there doing this, well before bankruptcy. This TA will just give birth to more.
Voting no, in hopes we get a shorter term TA and with clearer language ensuring our
part in PBS. Right now its pretty weak.
I want to see a modified version with a shorter term. No vote.
You can cut pay, vacation and benefits every other year, but it will not build a decent product. All the Eagle TA accomplishes is ****ing people off for longer. You will get more people milking the clock and more Alpha 3s. There are already a few people put there doing this, well before bankruptcy. This TA will just give birth to more.
Voting no, in hopes we get a shorter term TA and with clearer language ensuring our
part in PBS. Right now its pretty weak.
I want to see a modified version with a shorter term. No vote.
09-24-2012 | 07:18 PM
#355
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,413
Likes: 0
From: forever fo
I believe this company does run inefficiently. But cost and efficiency are two different things. Having that one extra ramper, better trained gate agent/crew scheduler, crew planning, benefit package, computer system that tracks and correlates equipment and crews and a corporate culture that rewards proactive workers and teamwork...those are elements of genuine business plan change.
You can cut pay, vacation and benefits every other year, but it will not build a decent product. All the Eagle TA accomplishes is ****ing people off for longer. You will get more people milking the clock and more Alpha 3s. There are already a few people put there doing this, well before bankruptcy. This TA will just give birth to more.
Voting no, in hopes we get a shorter term TA and with clearer language ensuring our
part in PBS. Right now its pretty weak.
I want to see a modified version with a shorter term. No vote.
You can cut pay, vacation and benefits every other year, but it will not build a decent product. All the Eagle TA accomplishes is ****ing people off for longer. You will get more people milking the clock and more Alpha 3s. There are already a few people put there doing this, well before bankruptcy. This TA will just give birth to more.
Voting no, in hopes we get a shorter term TA and with clearer language ensuring our
part in PBS. Right now its pretty weak.
I want to see a modified version with a shorter term. No vote.
^ THIS!!!!!!!!! I dont understand how PBS does not cover the costs the company wants???
Also, we will yet again, be giving up an average of $12,000 per pilot per year with this TA.
09-25-2012 | 07:27 AM
#359
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 740
Likes: 14
Interestly enough her posts on all sites echo the sound of management stooge. Just reading her posts on these sites would make me vote no. Basic understanding AMR hasn't filed an 1113 so stating they will is guess work. You apparently agree that this is concessionary and not sec 6. Who signs an 8 year contract with bankruptcy terms. Jim Winkley is in NYC today. Saw him land. Surprised he didnt have secret service. More surprising why he would show up in NYC to scare more pilots. Unless they in Dallas are worried. You would think the MEC chair would show up not VP of flight. Guess he gets a bonus if it passes.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
