But there is so much kool aid on here...

Honest question brother, have you been to a road show? And I'm not asking in a demeaning way.

I was a YES on the AIP bullet points, a HELL NO after reading Sections 1 and 25, but I'm now going to vote YES after attending a road show. There were a lot of facts and data presented. There were a lot of rumors dispelled. There were a few of you quoted from here. We can also point the majority of the blame at the forthcoming loss of reserve drops on the DFW Whatsapp Tinfoil Hat Brigade and their lunatic ex leader. If ever there was a group to distrust and not follow those few are it.

I'm not going to try to argue for or against but I will encourage everyone to attend a road show. It wasn't a 'sell job' and I was going in with the mindset of voting no. Educate yourself and then vote was is best for you.

This x1000

What guys aren’t getting is I want to vote yes on this thing. I haven’t been complaining about section 25 and while section 3 isn’t my cup of tea I’d vote for it because of the very important gains elsewhere. Good money, a DC retirement, own occupation LTD, and scope protection for mergers and prevention of outsourcing my current job or growth. We are 95% there. The 5% unfortunately deals with outsourcing growth and that’s a problem for me.

I streamed the ord road show and saw all the graphs and listened to all the Q and A (not day 2). I’ve read every Q and A email and the master Q and A on the TA website. I’ve also read the entire TA page by page. My concerns on most of 1.E have been addressed and although it’s not what I would’ve liked to see, I can probably live with it I think. I’ve sent email with other scope concerns I have that have gone unanswered.

I respect the NC and the entire panel doing the road shows and I know they are very busy. They may not have gotten to my emails yet. I plan to ask my questions in person. It’s not a personal attack on anyone here or the NC or Art. My questions have not been answered. I just get called crazy and that I don’t know anything but no one can seem to tell me definatively that my concerns are unfounded with supporting language to prove otherwise.

I read the scope section as if I’m John Bendoritis and Ted Christie trying to seek a work around of my now higher cost pilot group. These guys have a history and it’s not pilot friendly. The will not grow this airline with us if they don’t have to. I want our scope section to ensure that they have to.

If a frontier merger is slated for tomorrow it would be smart to take this just for what’s in it now. I understand that.

A question I asked earlier that’s more opinion based and not related to voting yes or no but no one answered.

Does anyone see a problem with Spirit being a viable business model if it clearly has to rely on the pilots subsidizing the profit margins with below industry standard compensation. The profit margin expectation slide basically said we are not a competitive company if they pay us Delta compensation. To me that basically means we have to agree to working at a discount until the point where this model adds more revenue streams than it currently has or the model can’t compete. Does anyone else see it that way and/or have a problem with that idea or agree that that’s acceptable?

This is the closest question and answer from the TA website on a scope concern

Does our Scope clause protect us from having regional airlines doing Spirit flying? I’ve heard that SkyWest and Trans States have the Mitsubishi MRJ on order with no customer.

No other carrier, regional, or otherwise can do Spirit’s flying, except if Spirit contracts out to have it performed. Such contracting would be subject to the time limits and circumstances in Section 1.B.2. Spirit could, perhaps, code share with a regional carrier using the MRJ. However, in a typical code share agreement the carrier doing the flying keeps 99% of the revenue and, as with contracting out, there is no reason for Spirit to give up revenue from a profitable route just to have a regional carrier perform it using equipment with less seating capacity. Fee for service arrangements would be even more impractical because Spirit would not only be losing much of the revenue from the flying, they would be paying to have another carrier do flying Spirit that could do profitably, or for passenger feed – something Spirit has never done and which would make no sense.

Finally, Spirit could acquire a regional carrier that used Mitsubishi aircraft. However, the Mitsubishi (at 88,000 pounds) is above the weight limits for regional aircraft as defined in Section 1.BL of the TA and, therefore, any growth in flying performed by a carrier using the Mitsubishi would have to be accompanied by comparable growth in Spirit flying.



My question:

1. A fee for service agreement (CPA) is not structured like a typical codeshare agreement. Do fee for service agreements (CPAs) fall under the protections of 1.B.2 (90 day) or 1.B.3 (codesharing). Art had said codesharing which means unlimited in size of aircraft and amount.

2. If fee for service agreements are not profitable why does every legacy carrier use them up to their max allowable limit by their pilots scope clause? Why do they constantly seek to increase the size of aircraft and amount of these agreements through scope concessions? Why did the united pilots implement the “scope choke” in their last contract? Surely the entire domestic network cannot be unprofitable and just feed for the only profitable Intl flying. We have no size or volume restrictions on this type of agreement if it falls under 1.B.3. We just can’t be reduced.

Spirit may have not done this before but it doesn’t mean they won’t when the time is right. It doesn’t have to be RJs which currently don’t match the high density model. The legacies use “RJs” because it’s whats allowed by pilots scope. Is the E175 really an Rj anyway? It could be MRJs, Cseries, E190/E195s, 737/320s. If the argument is because we are not hub and spoke I’d say the closer to the Airbus it is the less it’s about feed and the more it’s about replacement. FLL is also largely hub and spoke and our largest station.

The other carriers have pages upon pages on this topic because it bit them before they knew how bad it could be. Is Spirit just so different that it couldn’t happen and we are wasting our time to insure against it or have we and I’m just not understanding. Am I just crazy to think this?

I’m really tired of everyone telling folks they need to go to a roadshow if they are voting no. I did go to a roadshow and I’m still voting no. I could take most things in the pos ta but I can’t sign off on no reserve drops. I can go to all the road shows and it won’t convince me other wise. There are other reasons I’m voting no (scope, no raise in training pay, pay in general). But the roadshow didn’t change my mind, maybe there wasn’t enough kool-aid at the one I went to, or maybe this is my 3+ contract negotiation in almost 20 years and I refuse to buy what they are selling, and I refuse to pull the ladder up behind me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here’s to you hopefully being senior to me so I move up a number when you quit on March 1st. After this passes.

Here is honest question. The guy makes intelligent, clear post stating his view of TA. Why you feel necessary to be d1ck?

Because if he had actually gone to a road show he would have seen, very well laid out, why reserve drops are gone. Whether it be TA1 or TA150. They are gone. As for scope? Now I’m a vindictive a$$, but if i was management, and it failed, I’d do everything in my power to screw the pilots with current contract scope. Again, I’m pretty vindictive. Just not sure what people realistically think TA2 would look like. Tired of the liberal logic of I’m supposed to get everything I want all the time, immediately. No matter what. It will pass easily. My statement was that he along with others must be just about to leave since the new contract will make life unmanageable.