|
Originally Posted by Justmeagain
(Post 2528104)
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. It is their vote. This pilot group is extremely divided. We will see on 2/28/18. Good luck. |
Originally Posted by otter1
(Post 2528034)
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. 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? |
Originally Posted by Pgus
(Post 2528148)
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. 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?
|
Originally Posted by FLYBOYMATTHEW
(Post 2528175)
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?
|
Originally Posted by Dukeuno
(Post 2527811)
Don’t work for Spirit and you say you don’t care if it passes or fail, but you voted Nay on the Poll. Lol��
|
Originally Posted by otter1
(Post 2528028)
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? 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? |
Originally Posted by otter1
(Post 2528023)
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.
|
Originally Posted by dotslash
(Post 2528236)
"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?
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:14 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands