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