Frontier Negotiations Discussion
11-27-2018, 08:30 AM
#3712
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2018
Position: A320
Posts: 241
Color me naive, but why aren’t we getting the Vacation Cancellation language removed in this wonderful AIP loved so much by the DEN crowd?
If not, do we any have anyone to blame but ourselves and this crackerjack NC when (not if) they resume the death march?
Talk about taking your eye off the ball.............
If not, do we any have anyone to blame but ourselves and this crackerjack NC when (not if) they resume the death march?
Talk about taking your eye off the ball.............
11-27-2018, 08:50 AM
#3713
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 461
I know that I have appeared as a strong yes voter on these forums at times, but I am not opposed to voting No.
My hesitation is this: we don't seem to be at all unified in why we would vote no. And without that, how can we expect a satisfactory TA2? If we vote it down for 5 different reasons, what the heck is the NC supposed to do with that? Do you want them to push back on PBS? Contract duration? Pay rates? The gutted middle of pay scale rates? The lack of Redeye or A321 overrides?
What are we voting it down over, and what do you want the NC to do about it? I believe that when Southwest and Delta voted their TAs down, it was for very specific reasons. Lack of scope protection at SW and the awful medical policy at DL if you called in sick too many times. They didn't vote them down because the pay wasn't high enough.
I am not optimistic that frontier will come up with a satisfactory TA2. I believe they will punish us by not negotiating at all for some time and then try and pull some BS money shuffle to make it look better while not really adding much if anything to the pot.
I have watched Indigo operate and treat us for 5 years now. Nothing they have ever done leads me to believe they will agree to substantial improvements in TA2. And if I'm right, they will add so little to TA2 that we wont recoup our losses.
I could be wrong and I could be swayed to vote No, but I see this talk of "oooo 5% more in 6 months" and i just don't see it going that well for us.
My hesitation is this: we don't seem to be at all unified in why we would vote no. And without that, how can we expect a satisfactory TA2? If we vote it down for 5 different reasons, what the heck is the NC supposed to do with that? Do you want them to push back on PBS? Contract duration? Pay rates? The gutted middle of pay scale rates? The lack of Redeye or A321 overrides?
What are we voting it down over, and what do you want the NC to do about it? I believe that when Southwest and Delta voted their TAs down, it was for very specific reasons. Lack of scope protection at SW and the awful medical policy at DL if you called in sick too many times. They didn't vote them down because the pay wasn't high enough.
I am not optimistic that frontier will come up with a satisfactory TA2. I believe they will punish us by not negotiating at all for some time and then try and pull some BS money shuffle to make it look better while not really adding much if anything to the pot.
I have watched Indigo operate and treat us for 5 years now. Nothing they have ever done leads me to believe they will agree to substantial improvements in TA2. And if I'm right, they will add so little to TA2 that we wont recoup our losses.
I could be wrong and I could be swayed to vote No, but I see this talk of "oooo 5% more in 6 months" and i just don't see it going that well for us.
Aero, there is no oooo 5% talk in 6 months. I gotta say, that seems like a bit of yes-vote-itis oozing out...
That said, what do you mean by "what the heck is the NC supposed to do with that"? The answer is our new MEC/NC needs to address most, if not all, of these issues. They're all deal breakers for different people and the bullet points, as a whole, are so bad that I can't justify a yes vote. This thing missed by a mile and fixing one issue isn't going to solve it. A lot of value needs to be added to this contract.
The foundational aspects of TA1 are so bad that I am unable to overlook perceived deficiencies in other areas. For example, in order to vote yes on this contract, I needed adequate scope, better LTD than what was AIP'd, higher initial retirement percentage, and 15% higher rates. I also needed enough retro. I also needed enough LOA 67.
Now, we haven't seen the AIP, but does anyone think there's going to be enough in there to make up for what we DO know? I predict the NOs will skyrocket when the AIP is released.
The NMB is irrelevant to the discussion. New hire apps will soon be irrelevant to the discussion.
11-27-2018, 08:55 AM
#3714
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 461
Add to the above PatRyan Bidding System with unknown language and disappointment in every foundational area and I don't see how people can even consider voting yes on this.
Lots of good explanations why this is ANOTHER non-starter.
Lots of good explanations why this is ANOTHER non-starter.
11-27-2018, 09:23 AM
#3715
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Position: A319/A320/A321 CA
Posts: 363
I heard repeatedly from union officers that the full operating language for PBS would be included in the TA and that grievances that (will) arise during implementation will be sent to expedited arbitration with language specifying that the arbitrator must take into consideration, language from the LOAs of other NavBlue users including Delta, Hawaiian, Spirit, etc. The roadshows should be coming soon, so I guess we’ll see if anything has changed. BTW, I’ve heard that while Delta’s other work rules are great, that it’s PBS language isn’t that stellar; after all they took that bullet in bankruptcy I believe. Maybe a Delta guy can chime in.
11-27-2018, 09:55 AM
#3716
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 418
Duration needs to be shortened. It has been nearly 12 years since our last scheduled contract negotiation. It has be 10 years since our bankruptcy. We are so far behind our peers because they have had a couple negotiation cycles since we have.
We have the contract that we do now because WE agreed to it. WE agreed to the duration. During bankruptcy we had many of the same discussions we are having now. WE allowed a duration that was much too long.
At the time, there were a group a 'Yes' voters saying many of the same things that I am hearing now (that we have no choice, and we must accept this now).
If we agree to a 5 year duration (actually 8) we will ALWAYS be so far behind our peers. They will have multiple contracts before we have an opportunity to once again play catch up.
Let's LEARN FROM OUR PAST MISTAKES!!!!!
This AIP moved us from LAST to LAST. Why would we give that to them for the next 8 years?
We have the contract that we do now because WE agreed to it. WE agreed to the duration. During bankruptcy we had many of the same discussions we are having now. WE allowed a duration that was much too long.
At the time, there were a group a 'Yes' voters saying many of the same things that I am hearing now (that we have no choice, and we must accept this now).
If we agree to a 5 year duration (actually 8) we will ALWAYS be so far behind our peers. They will have multiple contracts before we have an opportunity to once again play catch up.
Let's LEARN FROM OUR PAST MISTAKES!!!!!
This AIP moved us from LAST to LAST. Why would we give that to them for the next 8 years?
11-27-2018, 09:57 AM
#3717
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: 1900D CA
Posts: 3,490
Aero, there is no oooo 5% talk in 6 months. I gotta say, that seems like a bit of yes-vote-itis oozing out...
That said, what do you mean by "what the heck is the NC supposed to do with that"? The answer is our new MEC/NC needs to address most, if not all, of these issues. They're all deal breakers for different people and the bullet points, as a whole, are so bad that I can't justify a yes vote. This thing missed by a mile and fixing one issue isn't going to solve it. A lot of value needs to be added to this contract.
That said, what do you mean by "what the heck is the NC supposed to do with that"? The answer is our new MEC/NC needs to address most, if not all, of these issues. They're all deal breakers for different people and the bullet points, as a whole, are so bad that I can't justify a yes vote. This thing missed by a mile and fixing one issue isn't going to solve it. A lot of value needs to be added to this contract.
And to your point about the NC needing to improve in virtually all areas, I'm afraid that's just unrealistic. In fact, from what I heard, they pushed very hard and felt there was nothing left to gain. Hard to imagine going from that to improvements in numerous areas. But, I'm just being pessimistic about our chances and timeline to reach a second TA
11-27-2018, 10:00 AM
#3719
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2014
Posts: 154
Duration needs to be shortened. It has been nearly 12 years since our last scheduled contract negotiation. It has be 10 years since our bankruptcy. We are so far behind our peers because they have had a couple negotiation cycles since we have.
We have the contract that we do now because WE agreed to it. WE agreed to the duration. During bankruptcy we had many of the same discussions we are having now. WE allowed a duration that was much too long.
At the time, there were a group a 'Yes' voters saying many of the same things that I am hearing now (that we have no choice, and we must accept this now).
If we agree to a 5 year duration (actually 8) we will ALWAYS be so far behind our peers. They will have multiple contracts before we have an opportunity to once again play catch up.
Let's LEARN FROM OUR PAST MISTAKES!!!!!
This AIP moved us from LAST to LAST. Why would we give that to them for the next 8 years?
We have the contract that we do now because WE agreed to it. WE agreed to the duration. During bankruptcy we had many of the same discussions we are having now. WE allowed a duration that was much too long.
At the time, there were a group a 'Yes' voters saying many of the same things that I am hearing now (that we have no choice, and we must accept this now).
If we agree to a 5 year duration (actually 8) we will ALWAYS be so far behind our peers. They will have multiple contracts before we have an opportunity to once again play catch up.
Let's LEARN FROM OUR PAST MISTAKES!!!!!
This AIP moved us from LAST to LAST. Why would we give that to them for the next 8 years?
11-27-2018, 10:09 AM
#3720
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Position: A319/A320/A321 CA
Posts: 363
Yes. Usually they release it shortly after deciding to send it to pilot ratification. To hold it back so they can roadshow it first will undoubtedly have many people incredibly angry. It would be an even more blatant sales job if they were to withhold it. Honestly if the process were completely “democratic” then we’d see the TA before the LEC officers vote, but I think that won’t happen.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
