Rock

Those seats have a max recline of 170 degrees. They cannot be used under the definition published in the TA.

Busboy

Just so we can save time...where are you getting these exact recline angle numbers?

Rock

The exact definition from the TA is:
Flat Bed Seat: A seat on a commercial deadhead carrier that when fully reclined is greater than 175 degrees.
This whole debate started because Seatguru.com has a definition about angle lie-flat seats that mentions some airlines market them as having 180 degrees of recline when they don't. Well what hasn't been mentioned is that Seatguru.com also provides a definition for flat bed seats. That exact definition is When fully reclined, these seats are completely horizontal, creating a bed that is fully flat. These seats always receive high accolades for being comfortable both as seats and beds.
Now, I have argued that we live by the definitions provided in our TA. Not those provided on Seatguru. But it might be helpful to look at the terms used in both sources to maybe clarify why this is probably not a top ten issue that needs fixing in our TA.
For starters, note that our TA requires "Flat Bed Seats". That is not the same as "Angle lie-flat seats". Our TA states that "when fully reclined" the seat has to be greater than 175 degrees. "Reclined" refers to the angle of the seat. It does not refer to the surface on the seat. As an illustration, if I strap a long 2x4 to the back of a standing man, the 2x4 is completely flat against his back, but if he is still standing, he and the 2x4 are not reclined. The reclining doesn't start until I start tilting him and the 2x4 toward the horizontal. Our TA says that the Flat Bed Seat does not meet TA requirements unless the angle of recline "when fully reclined" is greater than 175 degrees. Now, if you believe that "recline" means a flat chair surface with respect to the person sitting on it, you must also believe that a man standing with a 2x4 straped to his back is actually fully reclined because both he and the board are flat.
Now, reread our TA definition again...
Flat Bed Seat: A seat on a commercial deadhead carrier that when fully reclined is greater than 175 degrees.

If there were a bunch of Flat Bed Seats out there that when fully reclined were between 176-179 degrees, we might have an issue. But those seats don't exist. So why is this top ten thing from the TA that needs fixin?

Busboy

Wait...So, where are you getting them?

Rock

AA uses the same business class seat as Lufthansa and several other carriers. Its the Recaro CL6510. Seatguru says it reclines to 165 degrees. This website lists AA aircraft and says approximately 170 degrees for the international version of their 757.
http://flyerguide.com/index.php/Planes_and_Seats_(AA)

BlackKnight

Rock-

Didn't you say we can't use Seatguru for info?...

Anyway, not that I had much dog in this fight- you make valid points and arguments. Thanks for all the research and explanations. I would overall agree with you. (FYI- I'm not an APC poster who can't genuinely say thanks and/or admit being wrong. A crazy idea around here, I know.).

I'll also agree this one ain't a huge deal. I just couldn't stand any more back and forth of 180 vs horizontal...

Last, I do agree that clear concise language as CS alludes to is needed in more areas of the current and future agreement.

Busboy

You can use SeatGuru and any other non-airline website for data, as long as it fits your argument.

We can continue arguing about what the TA's "more than 175 degrees" constitutes, forever. But, it doesn't really matter what we think...because what we think doesn't matter. What does matter is the actual language in the CBA and how the company is going to exploit it.

Anyone that has ever flown intercontinental in a fully reclining, yet angled to the floor seat, knows that it is not a recipe for sleeping well. Thus, the angst.

RogAir

I may have missed this in all the analysis, but should we be concerned that the ULR premium only kicks in for "scheduled" block over 16 instead of "scheduled or actual"? I can see a lot of HKG-MEM (or other pairs) being "scheduled" at 15:57, 15:58 or 15:59 based on the company's own self-generated wind models, and losing out on the premium pay even though actual flight turns out to block 16+ hours.

TonyC

<GASP>


Yeah, I think it's already been mentioned (just not in this thread), but you don't think The Company would ever exploit that loophole, do you?


Just to give you an idea of how hard our Negotiating Committee had to fight for this improvement, consider the B-777 LOA that was "moments" away from being approved by the MEC and sent to the membership for ratification when it was interrupted by the implementation of §4.A.2.b. In that environment, it was unlikely the membership would have ratified anything, so it was shelved. The ULR trigger in that LOA was 11:35.


Yeah, team!






.

2cylinderdriver

Can you shed more light on "shelved" ? Curious how that went down. Also if the trigger was 11:35 then that sure looks like an example of the first deal was the better one? If I recall we had no 777's anytime near 4a2b. Now we do and just a SWAG but the Company obviously wanted the right to fly over 16 hours block, but not bad enough to apparently pay the old price? Or are you saying the NC just was lazy and never even asked for the same deal that was "shelved"?

Look forward to more details as this may be a learning moment as we consider the value of this TA and what me might get should it be turned down.