eaglefly

Considering the details of this offer, I might be better off at Sprit than AA and yours is a predictable comment from someone who likely fits in nowhere, certainly not on this forum.

eaglefly

Good thing you're not one of "our" pilots.

eaglefly

I don't understand Parker's rationale for even more RJ's. It's a virtual certainty that he won't be able to field even half that amount in a few years due to the ever increasing new-hire regional pilot shortage. Both DAL and UAL are moving in the opposite direction to boot.

I wonder if this is simply a deliberately inserted red herring designed to be subsequently removed on demand to make the rest of the package gleam and make it to the pilots ?

Only Jerry knows the answer to that right now.

Surprise

Actually, that's a good point. As I recall Parker even acknowledged as much on a crew news video a few months back. Although I really don't believe anything he says, or has said, anymore.

Two RJ-related red herrings in a single negotiation would be pretty impressive though.

eaglefly

Initially I said it was a smart move for Parker not to needlessly burn trust and potential respect by attempting a scope end run and the avoidance of asking for more seats sounded good.......until it was known he instead asked for more airframes.

Oh well, so much for that opportunity for a "first impression".

Even if it's removed, he blew that opportunity and quite frankly, no matter what if anything changes with this supposed "initial JCBA proposal" (APA term), I cannot help but see him and Kirby as inherently untrustworthy. I don't know, perhaps they're putting too much trust into the union-buster Glass they consulted ?

Glass BLEW the whole Envoy situation out his back-side and now he just screwed Parker and Kirby out of the one thing they supposedly wanted to achieve.........mutual respect, trust and a cooperative relationship. Parker and Kirby will now be cast with suspicion from here on out and that's too bad. Personally, I'd rather get a deal outside of arbitration, but I'm psychologically prepared to arbitrate. That will solidify the future of AA as a continually antagonistic carrier with the majority of the pilots sour going forward. The F/A's are there and so it goes.........all the things everyone wanted AA to be simply a pipe dream and forever in Deltas rear-view mirror. Parker and Kirby may or may not get profits, but the spirit of this carrier necessary to truly compete and provide that superior product is fast vaporizing. Just as Hortons first major mistake on the road to error was appointing Brundage, so will Glass be for Parker and Kirby.

AFAIC, it's "their" airline now and not mine.....and that will say a lot in the future as the majority of front-line employees wallow back to their past AMR attitudes and not move forward to a new AAG attitude, but....


......I guess the old adage of you get what you pay for is true. You also get the relationship you build and it seems clear Parker and Kirby aren't really interested in building anything.

texaspilot76

I saw the proposed rates. They look really good. It is the highest among legacy airlines. Now that they have taken out the 5 seat scope proposal and offered decent pay, if they add profit sharing I would definitely vote yes.

skydude

To all you yes voters on the original MOU, you have already said yes to this scope proposal. Read the contract/MOU already. The question is would an arbitrator have anything more they can do to change the scope clause or not? Based on provisions within the MOU (monetary limits) its very unlikely. So if you voted yes on the MOU, then you already voted for this.

Gallifrey

Not a big fan of the company's desire to get rid of HBT in the FAR 117 requirements. Also, what are they asking for in short call reserve report times? Yikes. Also, scope. And... nope.

The APA proposal is pretty sweet. Nice to see they addressed a lot of quality of life issues for reserves as well as line holders. Definitely more in line with industry leading/industry standard than the company proposal.

Also...

Yikes.

The Drizzle

You'd take those rates in exchange for 700 or so CRJ700/900/EMB170/175s? To give up THAT much I'd need to see 25% more pay and all the finest work rules that would make us so unproductive that my job would be protected.

Al Czervik

I don't think you understand the details.