WelcomeToBen

Just in case anybody is misconstruing my recent posts for bi***ing after a mere 18 months of being online, I can assure you that is not the case. I love working at Spirit and really want to spend the rest of my career here which is why I feel it's so important to point out the current deficiencies with our contract. I have nothing but respect for the guys that were here in 2010 and what they did for all of us that are on line now. That being said, if we are going to make this a career destination, we need to continue the hard work done in 2010 and shore up the parts of our contract that are lagging behind. It concerns me that a lot of our guys are so busy defending 4 days off and transition conflict (two great work rules) that they tend to ignore the areas that we need to work on.

ManFlex

I think this is a good discussion to have. I guess where I disagree is that I don't find many guys ignoring or justifying now deficient areas in the CBA compared to our peers. Our next contract will be better than C2010. The contract survey just closed and negotiations will be starting soon. If a TA is reached and it doesn't address all of these concerns, then I will agree that those deficiencies were ignored. I don't think the people doing the negotiating have their head in the sand. Maybe I'm an optimist.

WelcomeToBen

I think our union guys do a great job and I too have a lot of faith in the negotiating committee. It's a thankless job and somebody has to do it. I by no means want to come across as a keyboard warrior complaining about the hard work that all of our union guys are putting in. The negotiating committee, however, is a reflection of the pilot group. If the pilot group does not raise these issues with them, then they won't be reflected in the negotiation process. Maybe I'm wrong, but the feeling I get when I talk to a lot of guys here at Spirit is that our work rules are perfect and the only thing that needs fixing is our pay rates and retirement.

bp320

Sounds like your worried all the time .

Most people I talked to are motivated and expect big changes . Work rules , pay , EVERYTHING! Guess time will tell . Until then my glass is half full.

bp320

*** I miss quoted the wrong person cant figure out how to edit it... LOL

flyingpuma1

Our health ins is fantastic, the premiums are a little high but all you have to do is use it once. My wife just had kidney surgery 4 days in the hosptial so far (knock on wood)we owe nothing, we didnt even owe a copay before the surgery.

I don't have Delta's ins package but I did find AA's and ours is way better....

Benefits | American | Airlines | Coverage :: my.aa.com

Balder

I think your attitude is right on. We must never stop working towards improvements on our contract.

FlyingPuma, I wish your wife a good, speedy recovery!

gatorbird

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt but those were your words not mine. No cocktail needed to read that. And my post was at 4:27pm, hardly bedtime. Details my friend; please pay attention.

I totally see what you're saying in the second paragraph above and agree whole-heartedly, I've just run into too many people that don't put much value in the current transition language. Bad attitude to have leading into openers. That language is BIG and very lucrative, however many or few it affects. Month-to-month transition can be one of the major negatives in a monthly bidding system and I'm sure I'm not the only one who has worked under contracts where crew planning OWNED you during the time period. My time at home means too much to me and I'll be damned if I'll support anything that puts it back in the company's control.

Are there other possibilities that exist that change the language yet still protect us during transition? Sure there are and that's going to be in the hands of our negotiating team. It's up to us to voice to the team how important this is.

bozobigtop

Meatballs is right, don't blame anyone else just take ownership of your failures and what you have learn from them. You will be fine.

Car Ramrod

Hey Gatorbird-

Above was my original post and below was your reply:

"Great. We're ****ed. Because of your "principles" I guess I'll have to tell my wife and kids goodbye for an additional 5-6 days a month when I usually get a conflict. Bendo will be loving every line he reads if this kind of thing ever makes it to his desk. By bidding transition conflicts I'm doing absolutely nothing outside of the confines of my CBA and I certainly don't feel like my "principles" are compromised; I'm just working within the rules both sides gave me.

But you're telling me you'll give it away just so you don't feel "bad" about it and you want to work for every penny you earn? Tell me, how does that work out for you when you get paid 4 hours a day for an 8 hour day of recurrent? Or when you sit around a hotel for virtually free (due to trip averaging) away from your family?"



Let's look at the "details my friend"

1- at no point I said anything about feeling bad about people getting conflicts.

2- The sentence immediately after I stated "it is a matter of principal", I wrote "I want to be paid a fair wage when I do my required duties, then I want to go home. I don't want to have to "tickle the system" or take advantage of the caveats in the contract (like transition conflict) to make extra money." Maybe I should have put those two sentences together in their own paragraph so it would be easier to understand? Anyways that is what I wrote. That is what I Meant. We should not HAVE (key word is "HAVE") to bid a conflict to make what we are worth. I don't know how I could be any more clear... If you go back and reference your response on p.43, you may notice you left out the word "HAVE" when you originally quoted me. Thats when I knew you didn't comprehend what I was saying.

Ex: "I don't want to HAVE to bid a conflict to make extra money"
-vs-
"I don't want to bid a conflict to make extra money"

Those sentences kinda have a different meaning don't they?...

Then I further explained in a later post (a reply you said you "agree wholeheartedly" with) what I meant with an example where I said: "What is the conflict language worth? If you get 5 days off in transition and end up with a 21 day off line that pays you $10k for the month. What difference would it be if you were able to just flat out drop that trip and still have 21 days off and still make $10k for the month? Point is: you CAN put a $ amount on the conflict language". This example does not contradict with what I originally wrote.