Judas Priest Leonard. Stop splashing the thread.

 

So why the loa? If the company can do this then why agree to a loa that is worse for them?

 

EXACTLY my thought. The company isn't giving us this out of the goodness of their hearts. The LOA gives them more savings and more flexibility than whatever they can do otherwise. What this means for us is less required staffing/longer upgrades. Also, if we vote this in, it sends a very strong message to the company that we are willing to vote in almost anything come contract time, as long as there are sufficient scare tactics employed i.e. commuters having to come to their domicile for GS and pay for hotels if they vote no. I hope our pilot group isn't really this spineless! Come on people!

 

Honestly, this has been the hardest question for me to answer within my own decision making on how to vote on this LOA. The only thing I've come up with is this, I have to believe there would be some minor administrative costs associated with their alternate ways of implementing the EFB/DL program. And knowing these 2 DL days would need to be done prior to your 3rd day/WU/PC, would make it a little more difficult to schedule if they had to spread your DL days over 2 months. I also believe neither of these would be enough to prevent them from implementing it. Additionally, I would guess they want the liability language to specifically match the EFB manual, so as to mitigate costly arbitrations going forward.

Lastly, I don't get you guys and your "scare tactics" comments. Do you not know who you work for? This is Spirit, not only do I think they will implent anything that will lower costs, I assume they will. If you don't think they'd follow through, you are underestimating their shrewdness. They don't get to sub $.06 CASM with scare tactics. At one time or another we've all been appalled at what they're willing to do to cut costs, it's my opinion this would be no different.

 

Apparantly, it's two-fold, one probably has more to to with it than the other. Without the LOA, we can only do one day a month (correct?), with the LOA, we can do two. The second part (how much weight it holds who knows) is the thinking it's better to agree to something mutually versus just Implemeting something.

I think what it comes down to is getting the LOA signed to get us to two days a months versus one?

Jason Leanard, that sound kind of right?

 

I think pilots forget we have our own arsenal of "scare tactics" (see APA). I think the brakes can be put on pretty quickly on the economic windfall this company is experiencing right now. That would not go over well with investors. I don't see our contract negotiations becoming prolonged because of this. Only time will tell.

 

My theory is that the lion's share of the cost savings comes even without the LOA. The LOA will allow them incremental savings in infrastructure and scheduling efficiency.

 

The latest FAQ sent out by SPA109 is a fair assessment. Clearly shows pluses and POSSIBLE minuses. What it doesn't say is that if passed the loa will require a lower staffing requirement. It does say that pilots on min days off will now receive 5hrs training day instead of having training put on a previously scheduled work day. Lower staffing requirement. Slower upgrades, slower advancement to domicile of your choice. Someone on the list will be just a handful of numbers away from their seat or domicile of choice when the list stagnates. Without this loa they would be in it. Hope that's not you. Now that's a real scare tactic

 

How much will the LOA effect staffing?

I think the general consensus is that we are fat on pilots. Aside from staying ahead of the delivery schedule and our higher than average utilization, how plump are we and how long can it be supported? Spirit will seek cost savings where and when they can. Hypothetically if a "correction" to staffing is required, then its way better to do it now while we have a fat delivery schedule and an aggressive growth plan rather than when economics require furloughs and downgrades. I find that more scary.

...fire at will

 

Nothing has been published officially but the assumption with a little napkin math by some on this forum is that it's about a 1% staffing reduction. That's probably just north of $1 million a year in savings but that number grows as the pilot group grows. The number of dollars is not so much of importance to us as the number of pilots. I also think my numbers are quite conservative.