Carl Spackler

No, the day belongs to an administration that totally controls information and fights against the truth getting out. They're running a powerful institutional propaganda campaign and it will be difficult to overcome with the truth.

Great example of administration approved sloganeering right here. Social media is bad and full of lies. MEC administration is the sole source of truth.

As you well know, none of that means anything if the NC ignores the direction and SIGNS a TA with management. The NYC captain rep specifically stated that MEC direction to the NC was NOT followed. This makes the rest of your post above meaningless.

I assume you know your use of the word "criminal" is hyperbole. But given the fact that MEC direction was specifically ignored by the NC, the ONLY proper course of action would have been to reject it at the MEC level. Pilots shouldn't be asked to waste their time voting on a product that ignored their own direction.

Carl

notEnuf

It's not a philosophical problem. It's diminishing seniority. The reason it's FOs only is because captains, by knowledge of experience know how valuable seniority is. Where is the 2.76% number coming from?

With turn high turnover upcoming and all the OE for all positions coming out of FO lines this is low for sure. The cascading affects will impact all of the bottom 75% of FOs. Combined with tightening reserves required formula, trip swaps and drops to try to mitigate the effect will be impossible. If the evaluation was with historical data we already know it is wrong.

Free Mason

Or maybe he's not selling this and putting his personal vote out there would carry more weight. IE, saying he's not sure, is a way to not answer the question because putting a yes or no out there may carry more weight.

A rhetorical question, if everyone "trusted" DN, have you ever wondered why he voted to send it to the pilots? Have you asked him? If this is such a departure from what you expected, maybe it should be noted that he took an action contrary to what you expected, and maybe there's a really good reason for it. Might not be politics as some suggest.

Sink r8

Thanks, notenuf.

I'll quote from another thread, below, to explain how I got to the numbers. Since that time, I've heard that there are a bunch of restrictions that make the number smaller. For example, you can't use it to train across bases. It's based on block hours, not trips. Credit time decreases that number. I'm told UAL should have an easier time than Delta to maximize their 75% of OE trips, since they pull the trips before any bidding occurs (no FO's can bid the trips at all), and still they can only get about 35-40% of the "benefit".

As for your point that the numbers will increase with more retirements, my thinking is that the average % across the entire airline could do that, but I can't see us doing much more training in the NB than 100+/month. Purely a guess on my part, but I imagine as more people move up into WB due to attrition, they get to see changes too, offset by the WB growth.

So the philosophical issue is whether it's OK to take something from the FO's that's not being taken from Captains. One argument is that the TA puts serious funds in the pocket of 190 drivers, and adds 190's. Sure, the contract currently has 190 rates, but take a close look at them, and you'll see why the greatest gain in compensation in this TA, ahead of a 777 Captain, is an E190 guy, who has total compensation increases, W/O factoring PS, of $181K over the length of the contract.

It gets better. The total potential efficiencies available under 23.G.5 are 112 jobs, assuming that they get the full impact (not likely), and that there are no trips available for the people whose trip is dropped (not likely at all). The total number of E190's on order is 20, but in order to reach their 76-seat numbers, it needs to be 50. At 7 crews per plane, that's 140-350 additional captain jobs.

Maybe 23.G.5 can't be looked at in a vacuum, but as a shift of incentives for FO's. The net seems to favor FO's, surprisingly. How surprising is that, for a philosophical point?

newKnow

If there is a rep who voted to send the TA to membership, who now MIGHT vote against the same TA, does anyone else think he write a letter to his constituents to explain the confusion?

300SMK

I am NOT accusing anyone in particular but I find it intriguing that ALPA National keeps an offshore bank account. This opens the door to influence from so many different directions.

As far as a rep pushing a TA to memrat but voting in the other direction? Maybe based on the emails he received this TA offered what those in his inbox asked for-- the squeaky wheel gets the grease. After all, he cannot really vote and represent the average pilot because we all have our own criteria. Perhaps the TA matched up with the survey better than it did not, a fuzzy line for sure. Despite being a solid NO himself the ultimate decision belongs to a democracy; that is the DN I think I know. If he is publicly stating this is his position than I am 100% sure that is the case.

Voted NO btw and a buddy of mine who knows the fTSquared said he voted NO as well. Not even T is up for another scope sale job, SEA not a hug. YGTBSM.

ilinipilot

The two percent number is the lowest end of the range. And thus shows the lowest impact. I ask what base did they use, what month, what year. No one knows. They calculated that number and then applied it to the m88. That's a deceptive tactic.
I did an analysis of the max impact to my category. 717. I assumed that all trips by lca will be used for training. I know it's an assumption but that's the max. And when we retire 800 a year I bet we use it all or why does the company want them as an lca.
My analysis shows it affected 10.7 percent of lines projected for July. About 19 lines. That's the max impact and a lot more than two percent. Plus don't get me started on the effects on line construction.

SawF16

Like Sink above, after seeing how unwieldy the actual application of this will be for the co, I dont see it as a major player for MOST categories. However, any newhire cat in NYC (and to a slightly lesser extent ATL) is going to bear a very lopsided impact from this, I wont deny that- but I would bet a relatively high number of NYC OE guys actually get a trip or two done by an out of base LCA. Small mitigation, I know.

I do agree that taking the company wide average of 2% and applying it to a category that is likely to bear a disproportionately high share of the impact like the MD-88 is a bit disingenuous- especially if you just cast a fleet wide net like the MEC did in the TA FAQ email. For example- the MSP 88 guys are likely to have almost no effects from this (until new hires get md-88 MSP anyway), but NYC 88 will be in "maximum training mode" for the forseeable future. I think there are valid ways to accurately show how this will impact guys, but this aint it.

Packrat

If that's true, the MEC should have voted NO and returned it to the NC with specific instructions about why the TA was unacceptable.

BusDrvr

Guys like him give me hope for the future of our profession. He draws a stark contrast with the complacent old guard leaders. I had hope for DN. What a disappointment.