Why did TA1 fail? How can TA2 pass?
11-10-2015, 10:30 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 666
Good start SB. I'd also add:
12) Five year contract (or less!) I see too many factors ahead in the next couple of years that will only increase our leverage. Not a good time to be stuck on the sidelines with TA1's seven year duration.
13) The company wants to crack open Sect 1, and add subsets for the pilots? Fine...keep the PDEWs, tighten up the subset language, and give us some compensation (above and beyond the retro/bonus) for our increased career risk.
14) Some small housekeeping stuff that is long overdue like: a real COLA increase in Per Diem, a parking & uniform allowance, and language mandating minimums for hotel standards and health plans.
12) Five year contract (or less!) I see too many factors ahead in the next couple of years that will only increase our leverage. Not a good time to be stuck on the sidelines with TA1's seven year duration.
13) The company wants to crack open Sect 1, and add subsets for the pilots? Fine...keep the PDEWs, tighten up the subset language, and give us some compensation (above and beyond the retro/bonus) for our increased career risk.
14) Some small housekeeping stuff that is long overdue like: a real COLA increase in Per Diem, a parking & uniform allowance, and language mandating minimums for hotel standards and health plans.
11-11-2015, 08:25 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2005
Posts: 495
So here we are so far...
1) Ratification bonus was too low. The side letters added $2bn in revenue over 2 years in my understanding yet we were offered $125m as a bonus. ---Bonus needs to be doubled---
2) No appreciable increase in 401(k) contribution (match). Our peers get a 15-16% contribution but we are stuck with a 10% match. ---As a compromise institute a 150% match to a max company match of 15% with no cap---
3) Redeye override went from 15% to 3%. ---Leave it at 15%---
4) 4% DOS snap up. ---Needs to be 8%---
5) "The Association" can waive rule allowing only single DH after redeye. ---Either define "The Association" or remove that language---
6) Can only ELITT redeye flying for redeye flying. --Remove--
7) Giving away Max flying for free. ---No way. It needs an override or separate pay scale. This is potentially a 200 seat airplane. Is it not? I don't want to fly a 757 for 737 pay---
8) "The Association" can waive codeshare protections (PDEW). ---Either define "The Association" or remove that language---
9) MOU= back door PBS. ---I don't want a single swapa dollar going towards this study---
10) Fatigue calls require a fatigue report before you get paid. Really? We are adults here. ---Remove---
11) No appreciable improvements to reserve. ---Reserve needs to be more palatable. Pay per day, trip ownership etc.---
12) Five year contract (or less!) I see too many factors ahead in the next couple of years that will only increase our leverage. Not a good time to be stuck on the sidelines with TA1's seven year duration.
13) The company wants to crack open Sect 1, and add subsets for the pilots? Fine...keep the PDEWs, tighten up the subset language, and give us some compensation (above and beyond the retro/bonus) for our increased career risk.
14) Some small housekeeping stuff that is long overdue like: a real COLA increase in Per Diem, a parking & uniform allowance, and language mandating minimums for hotel standards and health plans.
15) Subsets—enough said
1) Ratification bonus was too low. The side letters added $2bn in revenue over 2 years in my understanding yet we were offered $125m as a bonus. ---Bonus needs to be doubled---
2) No appreciable increase in 401(k) contribution (match). Our peers get a 15-16% contribution but we are stuck with a 10% match. ---As a compromise institute a 150% match to a max company match of 15% with no cap---
3) Redeye override went from 15% to 3%. ---Leave it at 15%---
4) 4% DOS snap up. ---Needs to be 8%---
5) "The Association" can waive rule allowing only single DH after redeye. ---Either define "The Association" or remove that language---
6) Can only ELITT redeye flying for redeye flying. --Remove--
7) Giving away Max flying for free. ---No way. It needs an override or separate pay scale. This is potentially a 200 seat airplane. Is it not? I don't want to fly a 757 for 737 pay---
8) "The Association" can waive codeshare protections (PDEW). ---Either define "The Association" or remove that language---
9) MOU= back door PBS. ---I don't want a single swapa dollar going towards this study---
10) Fatigue calls require a fatigue report before you get paid. Really? We are adults here. ---Remove---
11) No appreciable improvements to reserve. ---Reserve needs to be more palatable. Pay per day, trip ownership etc.---
12) Five year contract (or less!) I see too many factors ahead in the next couple of years that will only increase our leverage. Not a good time to be stuck on the sidelines with TA1's seven year duration.
13) The company wants to crack open Sect 1, and add subsets for the pilots? Fine...keep the PDEWs, tighten up the subset language, and give us some compensation (above and beyond the retro/bonus) for our increased career risk.
14) Some small housekeeping stuff that is long overdue like: a real COLA increase in Per Diem, a parking & uniform allowance, and language mandating minimums for hotel standards and health plans.
15) Subsets—enough said
11-11-2015, 10:34 AM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: 737 Right
Posts: 1,385
I am 100% against PBS...but the MOU is a red herring. I'm perfectly happy to meet and talk with the company about alternate bidding methods. Is it conceivable that we may actually IMPROVE on our current system without going off the PBS cliff?
If you are afraid of the MOU you hear black helicopters in your sleep and you voted No out of FEAR.
PBS is never happening here, let the company have their MOU and pretend you made a concession.
If you are afraid of the MOU you hear black helicopters in your sleep and you voted No out of FEAR.
PBS is never happening here, let the company have their MOU and pretend you made a concession.
11-11-2015, 11:25 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,003
Originally Posted by 1Seat 1Engine
I am 100% against PBS...but the MOU is a red herring. I'm perfectly happy to meet and talk with the company about alternate bidding methods. Is it conceivable that we may actually IMPROVE on our current system without going off the PBS cliff?
If you are afraid of the MOU you hear black helicopters in your sleep and you voted No out of FEAR.
PBS is never happening here, let the company have their MOU and pretend you made a concession.
If you are afraid of the MOU you hear black helicopters in your sleep and you voted No out of FEAR.
PBS is never happening here, let the company have their MOU and pretend you made a concession.
I was afraid of what I KNEW was in TA1, as well as the stuff that wasn't in it.
The PBS MOU was not a red herring. If the company didn't/doesn't want PBS, it wouldn't even be a negotiating issue. Or an MOU.
11-11-2015, 12:29 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 309
If PBS is such a red herring how about a mutual meet and discuss red herring FOR a B fund?
The company has shown its hand. They need partnerships. They want an off shore domicile to link the Max to deep S America. Hence redeyes. They want sub sets. They want PBS badly. They hate how we can turn one week vacation into three. They don't mind paying.74 rig because we are more inefficient. .85+ not so much. Management is 100 steps ahead of SWAPA.
The company has shown its hand. They need partnerships. They want an off shore domicile to link the Max to deep S America. Hence redeyes. They want sub sets. They want PBS badly. They hate how we can turn one week vacation into three. They don't mind paying.74 rig because we are more inefficient. .85+ not so much. Management is 100 steps ahead of SWAPA.
11-11-2015, 07:29 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Position: DOWNGRADE COMPLETE: Thanks Gary. Thanks SWAPA.
Posts: 6,613
Originally Posted by gipple
If PBS is such a red herring how about a mutual meet and discuss red herring FOR a B fund?
The company has shown its hand. They need partnerships. They want an off shore domicile to link the Max to deep S America. Hence redeyes. They want sub sets. They want PBS badly. They hate how we can turn one week vacation into three. They don't mind paying.74 rig because we are more inefficient. .85+ not so much. Management is 100 steps ahead of SWAPA.
The company has shown its hand. They need partnerships. They want an off shore domicile to link the Max to deep S America. Hence redeyes. They want sub sets. They want PBS badly. They hate how we can turn one week vacation into three. They don't mind paying.74 rig because we are more inefficient. .85+ not so much. Management is 100 steps ahead of SWAPA.
I don't get it. Considering the record profits, etc, why would we even think about conceding on anything? WHY?!
11-12-2015, 02:45 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 309
Originally Posted by WHACKMASTER
I'm not trading relief on PBS for ANYTHING. I don't think you realize how good we have it scheduling wise. PBS would be a drastically negative change to our QOL & pay. Please, for crying out loud DO NOT even entertain that idea!
I don't get it. Considering the record profits, etc, why would we even think about conceding on anything? WHY?!
I don't get it. Considering the record profits, etc, why would we even think about conceding on anything? WHY?!
11-12-2015, 04:32 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Position: DOWNGRADE COMPLETE: Thanks Gary. Thanks SWAPA.
Posts: 6,613
Originally Posted by gipple
I despise the idea of PBS. The MOU opens the door for it. I want that wording gone. My suspicion is that if the lines and subset schedules and throw in red eye flying gets so bad, it will be the weak and unimaginative SWAPA asking for it.
11-12-2015, 07:44 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,003
Originally Posted by WHACKMASTER
I'm not trading relief on PBS for ANYTHING. I don't think you realize how good we have it scheduling wise. PBS would be a drastically negative change to our QOL & pay. Please, for crying out loud DO NOT even entertain that idea!
I don't get it. Considering the record profits, etc, why would we even think about conceding on anything? WHY?!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
