Contract Extension Agreement in Principal Reached

Discussion in 'The Pipe' started by TMAN, Jan 22, 2016.

Help Support The Pipe by donating:

  1. Jan 31, 2016 #341

    Challenger

    Challenger

    Challenger

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    8
    Im I reading right? F.O gets a .96 cent raise after 3 years.
     
  2. Jan 31, 2016 #342

    Matthew Kupetz

    Matthew Kupetz

    Matthew Kupetz

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,654
    Likes Received:
    11

    TSA... don't know.... exactly.

    So that leaves Commutair.... and you believe they will be able to go from 16 to 125 50 seaters, because of a UAL flow? Ookk And let us remember, the other way to a major is quick upgrade, and RAH had deliveries coming out their ears, perfect for the same reason, getting to a major, yet they could not get them, and are turning the most lucrative RJ's away due to lack of pilots.

    The previous question you asked ... we will be in the opposite position as TSACommute air for staffing, we will eventually be going from 185, down to 125, maybe even 70 or so. We essentially will eventually be over staffed for the new size we will be, that's about 600 pilots extra, but losing 500 a year will cover that.

    Bottom line, we may need new hires to hedge our loses for this year since we need to maintain our size in 2016. But we going beyond, we do NOT need as many new guys coming in as TSA/Commutair since we will be over sized. TSA/Commutair will need to do everything we do, and then ADD pilots as well, but many believe the BEST case scenario for those 2 I guess.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2016
  3. Jan 31, 2016 #343

    N757MZ

    N757MZ

    N757MZ

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    Honestly tsa has staffed all but 10 or so aircraft they still have take delivery of. They've done a pretty good job at staffing.

    You really should go into politics. Avoiding the ExpressJet staffing question two times makes me realize that this extension is what we need to keep planes in the air. Quite frankly, I'll take any extra money at this point also.
     
  4. Jan 31, 2016 #344

    stongda

    stongda

    stongda

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2007
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here's a question that everyone can answer for themselves. You guys remember all that "max pay till the last day" stuff about the last failed TA when we were all thinking the end was near?

    Does "max pay till the last day" logic = a yes vote on the current TA? �� It would be more pay, just not very much.
     
  5. Jan 31, 2016 #345

    Furloughed Again

    Furloughed Again

    Furloughed Again

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    1
    I dunno. Maybe Matt found some really good Denver weed.

    My assumptions are much simpler.

    1) There will not be another offer for L-XJT to vote on this year nor next year
    2) L-ASA will vote yes
    3) L-ASA already has 76 seat rates
    4) L-ASA has done flying for United in the past, and currently flies for AA and Delta
    5) SGU doesn't need L-XJT to maintain market share (Sorry, Matt, I think you're tilting at windmills. We've been happily shrinking to profitablility for 2 years)
    6) Fleet plans change almost quarterly right now. I'm not going to try to read between the tea leaves, because what is said today doesn't mean crap in 24 months.
    7) Everyone will vote in what they believe is in their own self interest
     
  6. Jan 31, 2016 #346

    lap

    lap

    lap

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    Messages:
    13,248
    Likes Received:
    23
    The contract is NOT what attracts the pilots, although first year pay is a consideration. It's fast upgrades and or flows that will attract pilots to those places.

    Two, four, six years...whatever it would take for UAL to complete their regional fleet plan. It's not a matter of whether they can do it. It's a matter of the timeline in order to do it. Just as they slowed TSA's timeline and are going to transfer 40 aircraft to commutair in years, not months. They can also transfer aircraft to ASA, Mesa, awac, etc. As for republic, again, it's the timeline. No regional can take so many aircraft that they can't find and train pilots for. So the timeline is the only variable. UAL can announce that another 35 of our aircraft are going to be transferred to another regional and eventually many of our pilots will find themselves upgrading at that regional, as has already happening with Mesa, compass, TSA, PSA, and soon commutair.

    Go ahead and make your point but as long as you state that it's a 100% certainly that xjt is indestructible, I'll keep pointing out that that's not the case and in fact, the current trajectory we are in now.

    That is a recipe for perpetual 10 year upgrades. That will not attract pilots that weren't already considering xjt. This is precisely why that regardless if anything, we need fleet growth in order to attract pilots in order to survive. It may be too late.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2016
  7. Jan 31, 2016 #347

    JetEagle

    JetEagle

    JetEagle

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2013
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the pilots who don't vote yes will simply leave for higher pay rates and shorter upgrades. This will pass, but our company is done.
     
  8. Jan 31, 2016 #348

    dojetdriver

    dojetdriver

    dojetdriver

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    Messages:
    6,915
    Likes Received:
    35
    It's been "done" since they announced no plans for the ERJ come 2018.
     
  9. Jan 31, 2016 #349

    Hercules

    Hercules

    Hercules

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2015
    Messages:
    572
    Likes Received:
    22
    I'd say you're half right, and we're all in a pretty good position. The company isn't closing, but a lot of people think it is. So the guys who want to leave have the "company is closing" motivation. And the guys staying will be fine. I say we all win.
     
  10. Jan 31, 2016 #350

    PhantomHawk

    PhantomHawk

    PhantomHawk

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2007
    Messages:
    6,695
    Likes Received:
    27
    That's irrelevant....those guys will all upgrade before they're on 3rd year pay. KOOL-AID!! WOO-HOOOOO!!!!
     
  11. Jan 31, 2016 #351

    judge

    judge

    judge

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,019
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ok Matt, I'm trying to understand your posistion. I'll try to paraphrase as best I can the way I understand your position. If I'm wrong please correct me, but I'd like something concise because it's easier to follow.

    Voting NO is in our best interest. If we do SKW will say, "Sorry about that whole $1.50 thing. It was way too low. Here's RAH + $1, AND a bunch of E175's. You are the sole regional in America capable of staffing them. We were going to give you them anyway with that $1.50 deal and laugh all the way to the bank but you saw right through that. You guys held the line, and for doing so we BEG you, PLEASE accept these E175's with RAH +$1, because the cat is out of the bag: RAH is the industry standard. We know it. You know it. Everybody knows it."

    Am I close?

    ETA:

    I think I read something else too that you may have said. Maybe it was someone else. It goes like this:

    If we vote yes to this deal then we will be stuck with it for a long time. Potentially up to a decade or more with no hope whatsoever for any relief in the form of contractual gains, i.e. a new, gainful JCBA.

    IF that's your viewpoint, and I'm not saying it is, but maybe it is, I have a very strong suspicion that is the case RIGHT NOW. We are years and years away from any kind of a JCBA that is acceptable. Have you ever had a bully demand lunch money from you that your mom didn't give you? We are like XJT's bullies, demanding money that inc hasn't given them. (We don't bully the company. That was just a financial simile.)

    Do I want more? YES!

    Am I going to get more? NO!

    Not right now anyway. Maybe never. The company might well initiate shutdown mode in a couple years, and nobody will be getting a paycheck from a company that doesn't exist.

    Squeezing out a measly $1.50 extra for the last few years, when I'm almost certain that this will be the last offer for a very long time, most certainly qualifies as max pay to the last day.

    I'm not a lifer. I want out, and I want out yesterday. But I'd like for the sinking ship to float just long enough for me to catch a raft at a real airline.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2016
  12. Jan 31, 2016 #352

    DerMeister

    DerMeister

    DerMeister

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    0
    What Express Jet needs to attract new hires is lower upgrade times and a non stagnated seniority list.

    To all of you who think it's about pay should look at Mesa who has crap pay but new planes and quick upgrades same goes for PSA. But I guess if you tell yourself that it's all about the pay then it must be true. TYFAD!
     
  13. Jan 31, 2016 #353

    verified

    verified

    verified

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    924
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why do you keep apologizing after you make a point? It lessens your credibility. If these guys are naive enough to vote yes then they have to live with it. We are going to get locked into to this for 5+ years with no annual pay raises and profit sharing will end. Mark my words... United in the next couple of years will get a large order of small narrow bodies therefore triggering more 170/175's and we'll be slated to get them. I think Skywest is counting on this so they're locking us in as cheap as they can. XJT is going anywhere!
     
  14. Jan 31, 2016 #354

    Hercules

    Hercules

    Hercules

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2015
    Messages:
    572
    Likes Received:
    22
    Might not get the world, but do you really think there was NOTHING left on the table? Cause I think they wanted a first year pay bump WAY more than I wanted a buck-fifty raise.
    I think that's his main point.
    But it's a done deal so it's time to enjoy the extra cash.
     
  15. Feb 1, 2016 #355

    Matthew Kupetz

    Matthew Kupetz

    Matthew Kupetz

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,654
    Likes Received:
    11
    I've tried to be concise, but I know people, they want to know how one comes to their conclusions, so I try to walk you through mine.

    Its nice when people resort to the, he smokes weed, and quote you as saying things you never said, like 'XJT is indestructible.'.... never said that. But it speaks to their fustration.

    A lot of my point is numbers, if you believe XJTwill be shut down, then a lot of realistic things need to occur for that to happen, so then one would need to believe those...

    Airlines that that currently fly 2 E145s will have to get to 40 E145s, so one has to believe there is a reason that airline will be able to grow in a pilot shortage such a huge amount, and if so at what pace will that occur.

    Look at Republics case, management built a story that they would file for bankruptcy if there was a no vote, hired a company called Seabury group, trying to make it look real, and put a Last Best Final Offer (an official Teamsters term that has legal connotations) on the table.

    Their union did precisely what I am doing, and asked themselves, does filing for bankruptcy solve managements pilot shortage problem, and therfore is it a real course of action management will take. They determined no, UNDER THE THREAT OF BANKRUPTCY EVEN..... because the logic did not make sense, because filing for bankruptcy does NOT solve a pilot shortage problem. Their union held up raising new hire pay, saying if you want new hires by raising their pay... fine, but you'll have to pay us as well.

    So, in our case... SKYW has stated plans, even bragging about the next 70+ E175s to be ordered. Do the facts line up that SKYW can cover those planes without XJT? I showed the math, they could maybe cover 50, assuming no net attrition.

    What about the other 20? If you just take those orders and hope people show up, ask... has that been tried, and RAH just did that... did that work? No, it has not, although maybe now with the new RAH contract. That leads to about 20 that one could reasonably conclude are earmarked for XJT to NEED cover out of simple necessity. As I said, RAH already has the CPAS and couldn't get pilots, what makes SKYW different for covering their last 20?

    If you believe that XJT will be shut down, then who will do the 125 50 seaters for UAL, that leads to TSA/Commute Air.

    And I layer those numbers out, and lap is right, while it IS possible, it will take YEARS. TSA has taken 22 of our E145s in about 1 years time.

    I just flew on them as a matter of fact.....the captain said, they have had to slow down deliverise based upon small class size. They are offering 200% (Gojet 300%... 3 0 0, yes)

    Those two could get spooled up to 125, but their starting at 52, and in the last year grew by about 24. At that pace, I will agree with lap, 2-3 years.

    But listen closely, what does XJT do in the interim to cover 185 RIGHT NOW? Our management can work us down in a couple years, but they can't back out of this year now.

    Think we can't ask for more in the interim? Well, that is PRECISELY what our management has done to UAL, and our management has gotten HIGHER CPA rates in both the 2014 extension, and this last 20.

    I am advocating we consider doing what management did, if the demand is high now, demand a higher rate and wait.... just like UAL has come back and blinked to a higher rate, even if in the interim, by that same tactic, our management would have to consider it if we voted no and kept our new higher rate at $23. XJT needs to staff those 185 THIS YEAR, $23 does NOT help that. 200% would be out there I'd bet as well.

    Why have they offered us any raise at all.... or is it they NEED us to ok this $37? To get us to go for $37 fo rates, and I am asking... how much is that worth to them? They are signaling plainly they need it, and quickly.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2016
  16. Feb 1, 2016 #356

    Matthew Kupetz

    Matthew Kupetz

    Matthew Kupetz

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,654
    Likes Received:
    11
    As far as the done deal is concerned, I just read the new TPA as it just got posted today.


    NOT GOOD FELLAS, kind of a game changer, and I am not sure how it's legal because there is a fundamental change.

    The quick back story, XJT had scope on its holding company so there could be no whipsaw, and that had successorship to whomever bought us.

    Long story short, it held firm for the ASA portion of our purchase and is what forced ASA and us to meege.

    Ok, that is big, because do we want to be able to be whipsawed against ASA? Clearly NOT, so glad that clause was there and it was out there precisely for that reason.


    So the change says,

    4,

    New CPAs. In the event that the Airline Parties enter Into any CPA, code share, prorate agreement, or any other similar agreement that is not defined as an ASA CPA or an)UT CPA in Article A., above, the allocation of the flying contained in said agreement(s) will be at the sole discretion of the Company so long as the allocation complies with this Agreement, ASA Contract 2007, and XJT Contract 2004.



    By allowing 2 extensions, but subtly also making the votes separate, we are allowing us two divisiona now to essentially be able to bid against each other sort of indirectly by allowing the seperate contracts and votes.

    Guys, that is HUGE. All other parts of the conversation aside, on its own accord, why do we want to have to essentially have the ASA and XJT contracts voted on seperately so we (via bargaining for new CPA'S with our own management by voting in a cheaper contract than our opposing division) can now really be forced to try and underbid the other.

    How is this possible, a significant change just voted on by our MEC? I know our MEC can do things without a full vote, but I am not sure this is in that realm, I sure hope not.

    Think our sides have animosity now, if we do ever get a new COA, wait until L-XJT and L-ASA has to consider bidding against each other?!?!?
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2016
  17. Feb 1, 2016 #357

    rjacobs

    rjacobs

    rjacobs

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    20
    I cant say for sure WHY the TPA says that(ask at a road show), but I did hear a few months ago that DAL wanted us to bid on the CHQ -145 contract because CHQ wanted out of it to staff the rest of their operation. The original TPA basically said "all DAL flying will be done by ASA" but the company didnt want to(or couldnt) give 145 flying to the ASA side per the TPA. I personally dont know how true all of that is/was. I believe I heard it prior to the RAH guys voting yes so things may have changed in that regard.

    As far as the rest of any flying, from what I understand its doled out to ASA, XJT, and SKW by Inc. and none of the 3 airlines actually bid on flying individually. I believe that was spelled out by management and confirmed by the union 2 or 3 years ago.

    And I would have to read the rest of the TPA as well to see how things should be allocated.

    But thats a good question to ask at a road show.
     
  18. Feb 1, 2016 #358

    JetEagle

    JetEagle

    JetEagle

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2013
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    0
    What I want to know is why this took so long. With all the talk over scope, nothing was changed. Looks like our Union wasted our time and dues once again.
     
  19. Feb 1, 2016 #359

    rjacobs

    rjacobs

    rjacobs

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    20
    This extension has only been in the works since, what, October or November, when the topic was first brought up? I would have to search my emails(unless I deleted it).

    Then they had to ammend the TPA which took a month. Then negotiate the actual extension, which took a few weeks.

    From when this extension process started its actually been fairly quick in union time.
     
  20. Feb 1, 2016 #360

    lap

    lap

    lap

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    Messages:
    13,248
    Likes Received:
    23
    Like I said, but you conveniently ignore, TSA, commutair, Mesa, rah, awac and Skywest can all do that flying among themselves. It's just a matter of having a timeline that allows the transfer of aircraft and training of pilots. And where are pilots going to come from? If only half of our pilots make the lateral move, UAL will be able to staff the 125 fifty seat jets and the seventh additional 76 seat jets.

    You make it sound like xjt cannot fail, cannot seize to exist, will make it no matter what, is invincible, all just because inc made a rose colored pitch to their prospective investors. I have tons of patience here. I'll happily counter your assumptions for days on end.:)
     

Share This Page