Originally Posted by jsled

Please give examples.

What's funny to me is it's the same NO guys as last time (C2012). Only then it was....

"Delta Minus! why is our pay less than Delta's!"
"I'm voting NO because of LOA 25! we're throwing the furloughees under the bus"

This extension crushes both of those arguments in a big way. Still not enough.

But just like last time, common sense will prevail. It passes

Originally Posted by jsled

I wish someone would tell Wall Street about those projected record profits. UAL is down 30% off last January's high.

Originally Posted by azdryheat

What is crushed? Pay is where it should be. Good but not eye watering.

How about vacation? Sick leave? PDAP for profit sharing? Average pay per day?

We are still laggards if we take this. I am no longer willing to follow. It is time for us to be industry leading. Add up EVERYTHING, not just hourly wages.

Originally Posted by Thor

Thanks for the link, that worked.


Listening to the FRMS bit, I don't see that ALPA is retaining it's ability to withdraw participation as we did with the MOU last spring. Should this TA pass, are we "in" on FRMS no matter what?

For example, if the company were to unilaterally decide that it would no longer publish first officer lines and the Captain was responsible for choosing the flying co-pilot. Something like this could increase fatigue and risk and produce a less safe operation.

There are many hypothetical examples, but my concern is that if we say yes to the FMRS template, we'll be along for the ride, no matter what.

Can ALPA withdraw participation from the FMRS under this TA?

Originally Posted by Thor

I believe that in the context of this paragraph, withholding consent is only applies to future FRMS routes and not ceasing ALPA's participation in the program at large (like we did last spring).

If the company did unilaterally change past practice and do something that would diminish safety, ALPA could withhold consent of future FRMS routes. The downside is that without the ability to rescind participation in FRMS, pilots flying FRMS routes who are negatively impacted by the company's unilateral changes could be impacted without recourse.

This is an offset (aka giveback) to the current agreement, no?

Example, the company proposes 20 new FRMS routes that fit the template and they're "granted consent" by ALPA. Now the company makes a change to scheduling or staffing that makes the operation untenable and unsafe. Under the TA, I don't see that ALPA retains the ability to stop participation in FRMS, only the ability withhold consent on new routes.

I must be missing something.

Originally Posted by jsled

FRMS routes, once approved by the FAA, have very specific conditions and limitations such as departure times and augmentation. The company cannot "change scheduling and staffing" on these FRMS routes without FAA approval. There are some good Q&As on FRMS on the extension website. They should answer your questions.

Originally Posted by Thor

The example I gave above has been a persistent rumor. Specifically, flight Ops wanting to eliminate flying FO lines and require the captain to "appoint" the flying FO for each leg.

Aside from the seniority and past practice issues this would create, do you think it would be a "large" enough change to withdraw participation?

Under the current agreement we can save ourselves. Under the TA we rely on the FAA to save us from a "large" change in operating practices, no?

I want to like it, but .....

Originally Posted by Thor

The example I gave above has been a persistent rumor. Specifically, flight Ops wanting to eliminate flying FO lines and require the captain to "appoint" the flying FO for each leg.

Aside from the seniority and past practice issues this would create, do you think it would be a "large" enough change to withdraw participation?

Under the current agreement we can save ourselves. Under the TA we rely on the FAA to save us from a "large" change in operating practices, no?

I want to like it, but .....