You guys are so far behind everyone else! What a joke

You mean kinda like growing one legacy carrier's captain positions while shrinking the others? That kind of guaranteed contract passage?

Can't believe it passed........thx AA :(

For some levity...... We have Ex-Cons but I talked to a couple AA pilots and they said they are "Native Americans" - coffee shot out my nose - lol

Make that a double shot!

In 2017 (according to DAL's 10/14 earning call). Crazy, right :rolleyes:

This is not true. We slightly improved the rigs that LUS put in place in 1991 because they were...wait for it...DL standard.

Trip rig is 1-3.5. Average day (duty period)will go to 5:10 with PBS, absolute min 2:00 a day. 1-2 daily rig. We wanted a 5:15 calendar day, didn't get it.

The APA had negotiated a 1-3.25 rig for trips with a RON greater than 24 hrs, but decided it was of little worth and gave it away after MOU vote.

WADR Sir,

FACTS are not allowed on this board! ;)

When was the last time the pilots of a legacy airline voted down a contract?

3 of the 16 747's were parked last fall. 4 to 5 more next fall. All gone by 2017 is the current plan.

I'll clear up as much of the misinformation on here as I can.

First, this was a JCBA, not a section 6. As such, we didn't have the usual tools and leverage we'd have in section 6. Parker knew that and played his cards very well.

When APA negotiate the MOU that yielded the MTA (merger transition agreement), they were in such a hurry to oust Horton and company that they gladly went along with Parker's plan: vote yes on a JCBA or vote no and submit the entire contract to cost neutral arbitration. The arbitrator selected was Bloch, very company-friendly. Nobody knew for sure what his interpretation of "cost neutral" meant.

If we had voted this down, we would have not only submitted our entire contract to arbitration, but also our pay would have remained at the same Bk-level MTA rate until 1/1/16, at which point we'd snap up to a weighted average of the delta/united pay rate that day. This means that we would have once again set the bar low (keeping our bk pay) while awaiting delta and united to lead for new pay rates.

It's important to note that we have never had 5hr min calendar day (the 30hr layover dilemma.) we never had it in last contracts and we definitely didn't have it in bk. It was not offered in the JCBA and we definitely wouldn't have gotten it by voting it down.

Voting yes locked in industry leading pay rates (currently 7% above delta, an immediate 23% increase and 43% increase over the life of the contract), retroactive to 12/2/14, along with some contract improvements in exchange for some contract gives.

Improvements are in duty/trip rigs, 2yrs LOS, Mexico counting as international, uniform expenses, etc.

Contract gives are HBT, combining dom/int, reserve rules changed from being "reasonably available" to "promptly reporting," vacancy bids going to several months instead of monthly, negotiating with apa to avoid Cadillac tax in 2018, and contract extension for one year.

Therefore, 66% of the membership chose wisely and passed this through, with the reasoning that we'd rather lock in the industry leading pay now, give delta and united a good pay rate to shoot for, and work on contractual work rules through side letters and such, as merger implementation problems arise where the company will need cooperation with apa. We wanted to avoid submitting our contract to cost neutral arbitration. It has never ended well for airline pilots.

Voting No would have been a poor choice: we would have submitted our entire contract to cost neutral arbitration, while awaiting a much smaller pay raise in one year, that was dependent on whatever delta and united did. Given that this industry can change over night, it was a very risky proposal and to top it off, the entire apa membership and leadership was badly split and had zero unity to fight after a no vote. (Unlike two years ago.)

Bottom line, we had no leverage to vote this down and extract the things we wanted after that. Parker played it beautifully, as he would have sauntered off completing the merger, taking the money he would have given us, while we would have been stuck with who knows what Bloch would have implemented through his interpretation of "cost neutral."

I think it was a wise choice to vote this in, given the alternative.

Had this been traditional section 6 with no cost-neutral arbitration backstop, I would have voted no as there would have been 100% more leverage.

Good luck guys, at least we have re-established pattern bargaining in the pay area for you guys to shoot for.