Originally Posted by Ed Force One (Post 2528210)

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 Tjamaica (Post 2528246)

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?

Originally Posted by Tjamaica (Post 2528255)

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

Originally Posted by Qotsaautopilot (Post 2528150)

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?

Originally Posted by Qotsaautopilot (Post 2528296)

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.

Originally Posted by Qotsaautopilot (Post 2528252)

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

Originally Posted by AllOva736 (Post 2528314)

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.

Originally Posted by otter1 (Post 2528049)

As someone else already posted, you misunderstood my post. 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.