For the no voters, what do you hope to gain by voting no? If this fails we get to keep our crappy pay rates, poor LTD, outdated scope, and poor 401K match. Sure we keep transition and middle day reserve drops, but those will go away with TA2 if we get there.

The NC has said the mediator would not push for more money, and the financials presented by the NC's own data show the company can't afford much more, so what do you think will happen? In my view we go nowhere for a long time, and then vote basically on the same TA with a few tweaks, giving up many thousands in the meantime.

Are the rescheduling rules in the new TA so bad you're willing to wait maybe a year or two and maybe not get any improvements anyway?

I know some don't like PBS, but one point made in the road shows by the ALPA lawyers was that of all the legacy carriers that went to PBS, not one has asked to go back to line bidding. Not one. The NC is well aware of everyone's concerns about PBS.

OK, I may agree with some of your points but in regards to what that lady said about PBS... are you REALLY that naive? You just take it in like that and not even wonder if she took you out for a spin?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Some of the people saying the roadshows are a sell job and don’t trust the information that they’re putting out, are the same people that returned Bendos offer back in September with “My MEC/NC Speak for me”. Now that they finally present a TA to us, they’re not trusting the information presented by the NC. GMAFB

I wish to gain better scope now before it bites us. The TA is honestly much better than what we have now but it’s not good enough to leave alone for a whole negotiating cycle. And while we’re at it healthcare and MMG for new hires from day one. Easy fix.

Did that profit margin expectation slide take into account new revenue streams Spirit has not implemented yet?

That slide told me that we are basically required to subsidize the operation. If they pay us Delta we are essentially not competitive. Did I understand that right? That means this is not a viable business model without us undercutting the industry? Did I misunderstand that?

If the economy takes a nose dive, these pay raises will not be on the next TA if we vote this down.

We are much smaller than DL, UA, and AA. Their narrow body pay is subsidized by palitized freight on the wide body aircraft. Not to mention US Postal Mail on the planes too.

We gained a lot and can get even more on the next contract as we grow. Surprised we got what we got without any pure freight moving on our aircraft. We don't put any mail in our cargo hold as well. Spirit Cargo is something this company should think about.

So vote yes.

Wrong, NO Res drops w PBS.
It's silly to even mention rules which only apply until PBS.
Does anyone understand that these work rules will be LOST permanently, for the rest of your NK tenure?
Are ALL you yes voters applying else where?
Thinking you are safe from reserve?
Think again when PBS reduces staffing requirements.
This brings to mind the a$$ hole who did not care about the commuter clause because he lived on base.
Poetic justice was served when they closed his base...
If you are going to vote only according to YOUR self interest, be ready for the consequences. Life has a funny way to get even.
It's called UNION for a reason.
If this is a majority view, management will ALWAYS win, like they have so far.

He was talking about if this TA gets voted down moron.

Burrrrnnnnnnnn.

Maybe it’s time you take a break from APC. Your posts have deteriorated to name calling and personal attacks. You have lost credibility.

At the road show I was at, Art stated that the improved scope covers every plausible scenario, and by plausible he said anything that made economic sense. Art has been doing this for decades, with a depth of knowledge that is very impressive. If we turn this down, TA2 will not have better scope, and we will have lost probably tens of thousands in income by that time. Frankly you've got to trust someone, and I trust the ALPA lawyers more than anonymous people on APC.

Well, it doesnt cover codesharing, lol. Thats a pretty big hole

As I said in another post, you've got to trust someone. I trust the ALPA lawyers, yes, as that is their job and their factual explanations dismissed a lot of my fears at the road show. I trust the MEC and NC, too, who are unanimously in favor of this TA, and who feel we just won't gain more by voting no.

So how was the ALPA lawyer taking us for a spin? Was she lying to us? Is the rest of the MEC and NC being taken for a spin too or do you think they don't have our best interests at heart?

I'm no expert on code sharing but Art mentioned (and it makes sense to me) that and if the company entered into a code sharing agreement, where the other party keeps 99% of the profit doing flying we could be doing, then the CEO should be fired by the board of directors.

So let's say we enter into a code share with WOW bringing passengers from Europe to Baltimore and on through our system. Those are passengers we wouldn't have previously flown so it helps our bottom line.

I believe SW is the only one that doesn't allow any code sharing. All the other legacies have it.

Voting this TA down will not get a code sharing ban in TA2.

As someone else already posted, you misunderstood my post. I am well aware of the no reserve drops after PBS implementation, and I believe it is the biggest negative in the TA. I've stated it several times in previous posts. In fact, I live in base, often bid reserve on purpose, and drop a middle day of a block often, like I did this month.

Other than that and losing pay-protected transition, I don't see the huge qol losses others do. A lot of the rescheduling can be done now. I don't think it's going to happen very often as they then have to fill the trip you were on causing another problem, and they have to get you back within 4 hours after your original return. And you will be getting 200% at the much higher pay rates for a lot of the scenarios. It gets really expensive for the company to keep you out for more than a day, so basically it's a tool to keep the operation going after an IROP.

Reserve will not be what it is now, no doubt. There are a few mitigating factors. The "want to fly" list is an improvement, as is long call reserve.

Big picture, there are some huge gains in this contract that a lot on here aren't focusing on. I'm in favor.

That’s the problem with guys like astral. He didn’t fully read your post then proceeded type one of the most insanely, idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in his rambling and incoherent response, was he even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this forum is now dumber having read it.

Cooler heads must prevail
 

The union also mentioned at the road show “this is the best we can get” with regards to this TA. Sounds like they feel defeated, conceded, and tossed this TA out to the pilots knowing it would fail

Don’t buy into the few cheerleaders on here; this thing is on life support

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree, the NC seems beat down and tired. Company loaded contract with stripping of work rules. You remove that signing bonus and it doesn't pass. ALPA wants this contract closed out. :cool:

Who are you talking to? Everyone I talk to is a yes, it’s the 5 uneducated guys on here who are a no.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think saying that you’re voting yes is unpopular in public, or on a whatsapp group. The silent majority, or those that say no, but vote yes may surprise everyone.
I heard some intelligent questions at the roadshow, but I heard some really dumb ones - especially about the X/Y list. If you have reservations, have you reached out to the NC or attended a roadshow? If you have, and are still a NO vote, fair enough. If you have not and are getting your information from others, shame on you.

I’ve heard that certain prominent members of the training department are vocal NO votes. Why? Maybe because CSIs are now considered ground training and will be outsourced (read: loss of income generating option for Instructors). Or maybe General Solicitation is going away and a more transparent system will replace it (read: my sweet deals will no longer be available to me). I think the greater transparency and oversight of premium pay opportunities is long overdue. A bunch of pilots and instructors that had their own side gig going on are about to see the playing field get leveled. Outsourcing within training departments is common. Ask around. If you want to keep the present situation going and wait, vote NO. But please start the clock and calculator going for the rest of us and make sure to recoup that lost income in TA2.

Why would they (instructors) care about what you need or want.
It is their vote.
This pilot group is extremely divided.
We will see on 2/28/18.
Good luck.

I’d love a codesharing ban but I know I won’t get it in TA2. I do think better scope is achievable.

From what has been said so far at the road shows and what has been addressed in the FAQ, we don’t have protections against “express” flying of any size aircraft done via CPA. When Art talks about codesharing having 99% of the profits going to the flying carrier he is talking about a regular codeshare where airline A flys their brand and brings some of airline Bs passengers.

They have said that CPAs fall into the codesharing language. Thus, nothing stopping Spirit from entering into a CPA with Skywest and having a bunch of MRJs (or even 737) painted yellow and saying Spirit but operated by Skywest in small letters.

So the question is, is that profitable? The legacies seem to think so and want as much of it as they can get and on the biggest plane they can get. The argument is made that we are not a hub and spoke system so the economics aren’t the same. I’d argue that FLL operates a lot like a hub and spoke. The deal is also as profitable as the terms and a CPA is not structured in the same way as a traditional codeshare agreement yet it’s categorized in the same paragraph in the contract.

Bob used Skywest at AirTran and Ted Christie comes from a regional airline and knows that business well.


The other issue was Flag of convenience. It was raised that no other airline has a ban on codesharing with Norwegian. Most of the other companies have actively lobbied the DOT and congress alongside Alpa against the model in the Deny NAI campaign. Spirit did not. And just because no one else has a ban in their contract why can we not be the first. If we are going to assume that codesharing is not profitable, fine but a ban should be in place on codesharing with ANY flag of convenience carrier. The model is a threat to the entire industry and any feed to it allowing it to grow should be choked off. Art says Spirit has no plans to codeshare with Norwegian. Are we taking their word for it?

Sounded to me like training pilots get some nice gains too. Is that not the case?

Protection of sim training (big), scheduling improvements, cancelation pay, 50% pay increase for jumpseat observing, etc...

Protecting union jobs in the training department is in all of our best interests, not just the instructors'. It's the same thing as eliminating line pilot jobs. For each asset that's pulled off line to perform training duties every month, it equates to hiring one additional pilot. Not to mention, who would you rather perform your training events, a fellow pilot, or management instructor?

Agreed! (10char)

Did that so I could see poll results. I already know this thing passes. I’ve been in the industry long enough to know pilots don’t down 45 percent pay raises.

What she said "that of all the legacy carriers that went to PBS, not one has asked to go back to line bidding. Not one" wasn't a lie, I agree. But do you wonder why what she said is true? And why she stopped there without further details? Did she also mention that the aforementioned pilot groups gave up line bidding for PBS while negotiating under bankruptcy? Did the lawyer explain why is it that such legacy pilots didn't ask to go back to line building? No, she did not. Perhaps, she could have been more transparent and said that it was negotiated during bankruptcy and that the reason they won't go back to line building is that it is not worth it anymore, the leverage they had went to ****. See, it's an unfair give and take, what those legacy groups gained in exchange for PBS can never be recovered in case they decide they want line building back. They know this, the ALPA lawyers know this.

So yes, what the lawyer said in regards to legacy carriers and PBS was true but definately not the whole story. They are not being dishonest but not 100% forthright either. And for the record, I agree with most of what you said in a previous post, I'm not against PBS, and I trust (for the most part) the ALPA lawyers. I just don't like when they start campaigning so hard that they seem to forget that the NK membership is not that "dense".

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

After listening to 2 roadshow presentations, I can say that I've softened my "HARD NO" approach as well. I guess you could call me a "soft no" at this point.

Scope has been explained in better fashion, and I don't think anything can change it at this point. So has Section 25, although I do think we could get an outside-in Reserve drop in TA2. I'm even OK with the pay rates *at DOS.*

My reasons for voting no, however, are still too big to ignore:

2% pay raises are more like a yearly pay cut after inflation.

5 year duration

No profit sharing. (It's profit, after all, not bottom line.)

Signing Bonus that equates to dimes on the dollar and validates all the stalling they did. (Read "Retro")

Remember, it will be at least 8 years before we get another contract. Especially since we continue to encourage stall tactics by not demanding Retro. That's well over 1/3 of my remaining career. How about yours?

"Art" will have job still, after you get stapled. He would make lots more working for F&H being labor lawyer. Why do you think he did not go there decades ago?

Dude no one is getting stapled. Use facts. You’re making the rest of us look bad

So you want more $? Everybody would like more money, of course, but what is the reality? By the time you got the company to agree to 3 or 4% between years and a little more retro (full retro would never happen) you would be just about even with the real gains you would start putting in the bank in 2 weeks. Don't forget it is entirely possible to just rearrange the deck chairs and give up dollars for QOL or QOL for dollars in TA2. Would you be ok with that?

I agree. I do see Ed Force’s point on profit sharing though. Sharing would have no affect on that profit margin projection slide.

Profit sharing or performance type bonus would be nice, of course

Most other airlines are getting a check close to or more than their DC every year. Essentially doubling their company contribution. That’s not a small amount of money. It’s over $30k in most cases. We are getting a one time ratification bonus.

If there is no profit then there is no sharing, simple. It’s not like it’s a sure thing. It could easily absorbed by the massive tax savings. Seems to me you would want your pilots taking the “fly it like you own it” seriously. Right now it’s just words.

I thought there was a weight limit? So in your example an MRJ or 737 would not be allowed?

I know how profit sharing works. Wish we had it too.

Yes but....... anyone who works here and pays attention knows that we will never have profit sharing because for some reason our lazy FA's have a "ME TOO" clause. Before anyone asks, yes Spirit has the laziest FA's in the game and the fact they have a clause like that for anything involving what pilots get is a massive joke. Do rampers or gate agents get that? Nope but I think they bring just as much to the table as a flight attendant does.

agreed on that

LCR has a min of two lines/base! It's a joke, and completely up to CrewPlan, additionally they can convert you to SCR 4 times/month.
The "want to fly list" exists currently, one can preference trips the day prior.
I did not see how I misunderstood your post.
To the yes voters with any maturity to avoid name calling:
"Do you understand that these work rules will be permanently LOST, for the rest of our NK tenure?"
Don't you understand that in a few months, (June) even if we save one provision like Res drops, or make small gains in LTD, Scope, profit sharing, it's worth it?
Is it good negotiating signing in March right before the high season?
Management will be "highly motivated" come June.
So their delay tactics worked, the TRO worked and the result is giving up and rolling over.
Just like not counter suing in MAY, because names were named.
I have been around long enough and have gone through a few of these.
In every case voting NO resulted in substantial improvements, which lasted years.
What is left to give up next time in 5-7 years?
Are we all so Money $$$ blinded?

No reserve drops were a company must have like LTD and scope were included in our must haves. I don't see getting drops from the company. LCR w/ conversion to SCR 4 times a month is actually good. I believe other airlines can assign SCR more than 4 (United 6 I believe) and we actually get paid an extra hour each time. Also, it's a 14 hour call out which is higher than most (all?) other airlines.