scambo1

It is still a plan on the shelf.Whether it is implemented likely depends on whether we get or need a HNL base. My guess: 6-8 months from now, we will know most of the answers.

Waves

What becomes obvious on this thread is that many pilots here seem to think WE are running this airline; that we should be calling ALL the shots. Who to hire. What aircraft to buy. What routes we should fly, Etc. I understand we all have a vested interest, but you guys make it sound as if we are in charge here. We aren't and probably never will be. Additionally, it probably wouldn't be a good thing if we were.

Control over our own destiny is somewhat limited. Would any of you strike over this TA if it came down to it? Have any of you figured out a time line for prolonged negotiations? Our current contract isn’t even amendable until Jan 2013. Meanwhile we have 598 RJ’s filling our gates. Do you really think we have the clout or leverage to force management into a scenario where they would buy these 76 seat aircraft and then have to park them in a few years? I doubt they could even get such a deal if they wanted to.

One thing in which we can all agree. Former Management ordered too many 50 seaters. Should we now punish them for it by making them eat them and thereby greatly reducing our financial bottom line? You know, this isn’t your last contract?

Lastly, this TA will probably pass anyway so we will not likely see what might have been. This TA is certainly far from perfect, but IMHO the risks of renegotiating a new one verses the possible perceived gains are too high. I could be wrong.

acl65pilot

Probably a really good guess.

scambo1

We don't run the airline. Our current management team seems to be doing a pretty good job of the macro airline running job.

We, as unionized employees, do control our contract. An important aspect of that contract (IMO the most important) is section 1. Outsourcing more viable mainline replacement jets is definintely something I would strike against - definitely.

Waves

I understand. Problem is, the 76 seaters which the company seems to need/want have been determined by many as not to be a "viable" mainline aircraft. The company has stated over and over again they cannot afford to use these aircraft for the mainline. Apparently it has more to do with the lower manning formulas, and overall compensation packages of the DCI's. I'm no expert on this, but every other major seems to follow this doctrine as well, so I have no reason to think we can change it. Again, it is what it is.

P.S. Did you know that ASA once considered buying 737 aircraft as our connection carrier? I know this to be true because I knew the Chief Pilot at the time. The reason they didn't was simply because at the time they couldn't find any for sale. Imagine the fuss that would have created.

APCLurker

Speaking of NewCo: I've been looking through the old "propaganda" sent out during the NW TA and found interesting tidbits:


"In order to provide an incentive for northwest to order 77-110 dc-9 replacement aircraft during this agreement [goes on to talk about narrow-body threshold and larger rj's]....." (we all know how well that worked out)

"The decision to set the threshold one year after emergence from bankruptcy instead of immediately was the result of.......this one year date seemed to pose an acceptable level of risk." (Ratio snapshot not until 2014 anyone?)

"However, all evidence indicates that shrinkage of the mainline narrow-body fleet is not part of management's current business plan. Management has indicated that mainline growth is planned" (again, we all know how well that worked out)

And one of the mitigating factors they listed for anticipated furloughs due to work rule changes: "...and the success of the Pilot Early Retirement Program (PERP)."

Lots of other language and verbage that sounds eerily similar in all of that material..

History folks.

Express pilot

Far from perfect. You said it and will vote for it. This is sad. Big leverage, the company came to us and you just say its ok so I'll pass it b/c I'm scared they want come back soon. Remember they came to us early, they want this done.

Express pilot

You could be wrong. You are so wrong.

texavia

Fine. They don't get to use them any where then.

dragon

Perhaps I'm oversimplifying your post but I read it as "If you don't want to strike over it, vote yes". Who said anything about striking?

This is a good/great company that has good/great management running it right now - again, right now. We were approached and the best that our crack team can come up with was this?

Where was the min daily guarantee, how about the pay rates which even th eyes voters admit don't reach the MEC direction to the NC, why is vacation still paid at 3:15 per day and why oh why don't we get paid for our time while in training?

We gave everywhere in this thing and that is why I'm voting no. Not because I want to strike, nor do I think we should. However, if RA's goal is truly labor peace then maybe a strike authorization following a turn down of this TA would give the NC the required leverage to act like the Pitt Bulls we need.