onedolla

How does it work for negotiating of the JCBA? Do we each send our individual NCs? Do we get a new joint NC? I would hope that whoever we send isn’t going to get steamrolled by JB’s ALPA and allows a “JB favoring” JCBA to come out…

SoFloFlyer

Someone correct me, but I believe it’s both work together to see what they are going to negotiate with the company? Idk which reps would be there though

OneplusF

Three way talks. Each MEC has to agree to
The JCBA prior to the memrat (which protects the smaller pilot population….if your MEC does the right thing, that is)

onedolla

Is it the same NC team? Or is this when the merger committee comes into play? Strictly talking about JCBA negotiations.

afterburn81

To be fair, isn’t this a direct result of the bargained contract and the inability to retain / attract, which is also controlled by the association?

X-list before reserves are used and there would be less open time if there were more pilots. The company is totally a circus. But I don’t know if a single airline that didn’t use most of their reserves around the holidays.

JulesWinfield

In my base on the FO side, we only have 6-7 reserves on any given day. We’re woefully understaffed.

onedolla

You might have to get a bit creative to blame phone tree issues and the inability of the “cancellation team” to contact or be contacted by crews on the road on the CBA. We should not have to bargain for the ability to get ahold of the company in timely manner no matter what’s going on with the weather or ATC.

SlimBob

Please educate yourself on what is in a TPA vs JCBA and who votes on each.

Excargodog

^^^^That^^^^

Effective communications are in the best interests of labor, management, and the customer.

thor55

http://nkvoteno.com/

2022 NK TA - Arguments for why to vote NO

Throughout the roadshows, SPA ALPA has been making arguments for why pilots should vote YES to the TA. This document is intended to counter the arguments made in the roadshow and other yes arguments made by the pilot group. SPA ALPA portrays the best-case scenario going forward if we vote YES. Here are alternate arguments of how things may unfold if the best-case scenario falls through. Please read, think, and make your own decision how to vote.

SPA ALPA NC (negotiating committee) did NOT re-poll the pilot group after the DAL AIP came out.

Our NC made decisions regarding bargaining on pilot polling that they did, which is valid. However, the DAL AIP came out on Dec 2, and our TA came out on Dec 7. Either the NC or MEC chose NOT to re-poll the pilot group after the DAL AIP was out. This is a strategic mistake: the DAL AIP fundamentally moved the goal posts and we were negotiating based on old polling data.

Our pay will be the LOWEST of the new agreements and will establish a new floor.

In the DAL AIP, the 12 year CA A321N rate is $349.50. The current AS 12 year CA rate is $306.00. The B6 TA A320 12 year CA rate is $320.00, and 12 year A220 CA rate is $306.91. Our NK TA 12 year CA rate is $300.00, and estimated to be $306.00 with the 321 override factored in.

After the DAL AIP, Delta established the ceiling for new rates, and AS established the floor. Considering how we only match AS on the top end CA rate, and our slope is considerably worse, not only are we below the floor of AS, but we are establishing a new floor, bringing the entire industry down.

We need to achieve closer pay with B6 so that the pay discrepancy doesn't hurt us in SLI.

Pay discrepancy has been used in SLI arguments regarding career expectations in some, but not all, previous SLI events. The SPA ALPA argument is that if we vote no, we will hurt ourselves in SLI. This is speculation. Consider that if we vote yes, we as a pilot group are voting in a top end CA rate that is LOWER than the B6 TA A220 CA rate. Just has this argument has been used to justify that we need to lessen the pay gap, it can equally be used that we will be hurt in SLI if we vote in A320 rates that are lower than B6 A220 rates. The only way to ensure that a pay discrepancy does not hurt us in SLI is to obtain a full B6 snap up while maintaining our QOL.

Myth: We will achieve a snap up in the TPA.

There is NO guarantee that we will achieve a snap up in the TPA. This is a best-case scenario; a more realistic scenario is that we will either need to make significant concessions for a snap up in a TPA or we will simply be told after the fact that it is unachievable. The pilot group does NOT vote on the TPA, only the MEC. If you trust in this argument, then you are putting your full trust that the MEC will not fail in their efforts to achieve it.

SPA ALPA stated in their TA FAQ that we tried to get a snap up clause in the TA, but the company was unwilling to write us a blank check. SPA ALPA also stated that if we asked for a snap up conditioned on the merger, which would have required B6 management approval, it would have given B6 management more leverage to ask for something in exchange than will be the case when pursuing this provision in TPA negotiations. No further rationale for this was given, and we disagree with this assertion.

When it comes time to negotiate for the JCBA, either the NK TA or the B6 TA will form the "floor" of the negotiations. Generally, B6 has superior pay and we have superior work rules. This TA will be the last opportunity of the NK pilot group to vote on something as a pilot group - only the MEC votes on TPA, and JCBA will be voted on by the combined pilot group. It is CRITICAL that we procure a snap up NOW. If we are unable to procure a snap up in the TPA, going into JCBA the B6 CBA will form the "floor" and our work rules will be in management's aim as concessions for pay parity. However, if we get a snap up now, we will have a CBA with B6 pay parity and our work rules. This will be a superior CBA, and our work rules and B6 pay will both constitute the "floor" for JCBA negotiations. That will set us up to negotiate for a leapfrog, industry leading JCBA.

Lastly, AS, B6, and DL all have snap up clauses in their new agreements. It is thus becoming standard, and yet we are lacking.

Myth: The company cannot afford any more than is currently on offer.

Based on past financials, this is true. However, ask if you are willing to accept a below market TA because the company cannot afford it. NK is in the financial position that it finds itself because of mismanagement - all other airlines are pulling a profit except us. Management never asks us for business advice - so why should we bear the financial consequences of their mismanagement?

Put NK management between a rock and a hard place. Force them to get creative on how to pay the pilots a market wage, like selling the 319's for example. Our 319's are comparable to the B6 A220s, so their life is limited anyway. Or raise fares, like all the other airlines are doing. Force NK management to get creative and find a way to pay us.

NK cannot afford to NOT staff. Numerous references have been made that the reason that we are taking quarterly losses is because of aircraft underutilization. For 2022 Q2 and Q3 NK has been losing $10-$20 million per month. They need a TA that will give pilots reasons to stay. Let's use this leverage - there has never been a better time.

The NK Staffing Plan - Don't retain, just fix the training bottleneck.

Pilots and SPA ALPA are generally in agreement that this TA will NOT reduce the attrition at NK. Management is not seeking to make this a career destination. Rather, they have adopted a model to out hire attrition, and are hoping to stem the losses to limp into the merger. The ability to raise first year pay up to 98.5% of second year pay, coupled with the numerous changes to training in this TA will allow the company to drastically increase training throughput and hopefully retain pilots at least 1-2 years after hire.

By passing this TA, we are enabling a regional-type revolving door model of staffing for the company. Our main leverage is the underutilization of aircraft, and by increasing training throughput we give that away for insufficient value in return. Let's use this leverage for more gain!

What happens if the TA is voted down?

There are two options - we continue section 6 negotiations with NK, or we suspend those and go into TPA negotiations with our current contract. SPA ALPA has not stated what their intentions are should the TA be voted down. In the FAQ, they have stated that if the B6 TA passes and ours fails, we could be forced to begin TPA negotiations without a new TA, however other than stating this as a worst-case fear tactic no actual details have been provided what the plan is if the TA is voted down.

There is an argument to be made the NK management will quickly return to the negotiating table with a better offer if this TA is voted down because it costs them more to continue underutilizing the aircraft than it does to pay us. Conversely, it is also possible that there will be no better second offer, and we will continue under our current agreement until the JCBA. Ultimately, nobody knows what will happen if this is voted down, however we have never been in as good a bargaining position that we are now.

Lastly, there is the fear that if the TA is voted down, the company will offer a bonus program to new hires. ALPA will fight that, however the problem at the company isn't attracting new hires, it's rather the training throughput and keeping new hires around for 1-2 years at least before they are replaced. A bonus will not help at all with training throughput, and if someone has an offer at a legacy, it's doubtful that they will decline that simply because of a bonus from NK.

What if the B6 merger falls apart?

In this case, per this TA we would immediately resume section 6 negotiations with NK. However, keep in mind of the concessions that were made - particularly the enabling of the revolving door model of staffing. It is not a given that the B6 merger will close - in fact, in the months since the announcement of it, the NK stock price has stayed consistently around $20/share, and has not moved towards the merger price of $33/share at all. SPA ALPA is making arguments that it will be harder to negotiate in this case from our lower 2018 pay rates, yet those low pay rates are our leverage that drives all our attrition. We will be in a worse place to negotiate for a new TA with NK in the case of a merger failure if we pass this TA.

Spirit defines itself as a ULCC.

The NC committee has stated that they reject the label that we are a ULCC, but that NK management and the NMB define NK as a ULCC. Management's argument is that we get paid less because we are a ULCC. In 2018, NK pilots on the picket line carried signs that said "Discount Fares not Discount Pilots". While the NC says that they push back against this argument, without pay parity it is nothing but lip service. No matter what the NC says, every time we are presented pay rates that are significantly below other airlines that operate the same aircraft that we do, the reality is that the NC is by their actions showing that we are, in fact, discount pilots. When do we take a stand that we are not discount pilots? Nobody is expecting Delta rates - however the lack of at least AS rates, and the lack of a B6 snap up, reveals that in this TA we indeed continue to be discount pilots.