View Poll Results: What say you?
Yes
214
72.30%
No
82
27.70%
Voters: 296. You may not vote on this poll
Extension TA Poll
01-10-2016, 07:23 PM
#211
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
I am really surprised at how heated the discussions are about this TA. You would think it is another SLI thread.
Times are good at the moment. But the only constant, is change. Vote your beliefs, and how you think this TA affects yourself, and the pilot group. Do you think we should take the money and run? Do you think the negotiating environment is better now, or will be better in 3 years?
For me, I am voting yes. I am about 60% in base, and my PBS bid next month is reserve. I am hoping to get "abused" a lot on SC. I think my record is 14. That month, I got paid 87 hours, and flew 10. The 14 short calls got me to 85, and a "show no go" got me 2 hours of add pay. I love the "abuse".
Reserve is my favorite, as long as they are not understaffed. If they are, reserve can suck.
Times are good at the moment. But the only constant, is change. Vote your beliefs, and how you think this TA affects yourself, and the pilot group. Do you think we should take the money and run? Do you think the negotiating environment is better now, or will be better in 3 years?
For me, I am voting yes. I am about 60% in base, and my PBS bid next month is reserve. I am hoping to get "abused" a lot on SC. I think my record is 14. That month, I got paid 87 hours, and flew 10. The 14 short calls got me to 85, and a "show no go" got me 2 hours of add pay. I love the "abuse".
Reserve is my favorite, as long as they are not understaffed. If they are, reserve can suck.
01-10-2016, 07:27 PM
#212
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
My favorite 570 story is this:
Sometime in January or Feb of 2000, before the summer from hell, a crew was flying with one of these DB's from MIA to Santiago. He was on his own mission from God to stick it to the company. They flew across the Amazon at .68 Mach, they were assigned .80. The two FO's pretty much begged him to speed it up to .80. He refused. It is a non-radar environment, and they were supposed to be using "Mach number technique".
They landed in Santiago, and had a very long taxi back. They taxied back at 2-3 knots, for almost an hour. A half a dozen other aircraft landed after them, and were stuck behind them. A Lufthansa 400 was directly behind them. They screamed over and over to have ground get United out of their way.
Later, when the crew got to the hotel, the Lufthansa crew checked in right after the United crew. Apparently the Lufthansa crew was not amused, and confronted the United crew.
True Story.
Take a scab, and add arrogance, and an entitled attitude, and you have a 570. Yeah, there are some decent ones, but in my extremely extensive experience flying with both them and scabs, I stand by my statement. They have earned it.
Sometime in January or Feb of 2000, before the summer from hell, a crew was flying with one of these DB's from MIA to Santiago. He was on his own mission from God to stick it to the company. They flew across the Amazon at .68 Mach, they were assigned .80. The two FO's pretty much begged him to speed it up to .80. He refused. It is a non-radar environment, and they were supposed to be using "Mach number technique".
They landed in Santiago, and had a very long taxi back. They taxied back at 2-3 knots, for almost an hour. A half a dozen other aircraft landed after them, and were stuck behind them. A Lufthansa 400 was directly behind them. They screamed over and over to have ground get United out of their way.
Later, when the crew got to the hotel, the Lufthansa crew checked in right after the United crew. Apparently the Lufthansa crew was not amused, and confronted the United crew.
True Story.
Take a scab, and add arrogance, and an entitled attitude, and you have a 570. Yeah, there are some decent ones, but in my extremely extensive experience flying with both them and scabs, I stand by my statement. They have earned it.
Wait a minute.
Staller, was that you?
01-10-2016, 09:54 PM
#213
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2016
Posts: 32
[QUOTE=b52dthdlr;2044081]
1. That the company asked for concessions to reserve I was not aware of (but makes sense to me as this TA was a negotiation) however I do know that the union approached the negotiation with a "wish" list and reserve was one of them so I was not "wrong".
2. Reserve improvements "do not" improve working conditions for the "entire" pilot group but rather a small 20% segment of the pilot population. In my opinion if we have to favor a small group of pilots I would rather favor a group (furloughees) that has suffered actual career damage rather than a group whining about their QOL because of their own doing.
3. This TA is not "defeat". Getting a lot for something the company already had and lost with "no" concessions is a win by any metric and yes voters therefore are not "defeatist"
4. Don't get me started on Whiteford and Morse.... I wasn't a member that supported those 2 disasters.... I'm blessed (unlike others) that I have a chance to make that up thru a B fund and yes, I believe the A plan ship has sailed.
5. I'm actually engaged with at least 3 no voters so if I attributed one of their quotes to you my apologies.
6. You and I are not on opposite sides, we are ALPA on opposite sides of an issue. I have never broken ranks, never will. If the TA is voted down I will continue to support ALPA and the membership. I assume if the TA is voted in you will do the same.
7. B52 guy as my posting name suggests, ex zoomie, 7 years active 4 reserves.. Now you know me
I respect and honor your opinions and your position and appreciate your candor. I agree we are not on opposite sides in battle, we merely disagree on an issue. It is of utmost importance that we carry on with debates like this. I for one am never opposed to changing my stance if someone can present me with facts and strategies developed from said facts that contribute to the betterment for our profession.
I will in fact support a yes vote if this is in fact what the majority wants. I'm not and never have been an ignorant chest thumper. I have strong beliefs but like you will never break ranks because things didn't go my way. Nothing is ever gained by fragmentation unless of course we are talking about things that kill.
Reserve improvements actually benefit a much larger percentage of the pilots than a mere %20. The number you speak of is the approximate percentage of total pilots dedicated to filling reserve positions. You'd have to take into account the many people who 1. Travel through reserve on an initial bid willing to take a calculated risk that they will eventually be a line holder. 2. People who would bid equipment that would make them more money but don't because they know how bad reserve can be.
Reserve was simply NOT addressed by ALPA in these negotiations and this was confirmed in a recent address made by Jay Heppner to Council 34 when a member asked this very question. His response was the company presented us with a concessionary reserve system and Jay just told them to take it off the table. Why he chose to disregard MEC direction on this very issue is appalling at best and a disservice to the entire pilot group.
I agree this TA is not a defeat but a short fall. We are just kicking the can down the road a little further when the time to strike (not job action) is now why the environment is more favorable to us than it has been in many years.
1. That the company asked for concessions to reserve I was not aware of (but makes sense to me as this TA was a negotiation) however I do know that the union approached the negotiation with a "wish" list and reserve was one of them so I was not "wrong".
2. Reserve improvements "do not" improve working conditions for the "entire" pilot group but rather a small 20% segment of the pilot population. In my opinion if we have to favor a small group of pilots I would rather favor a group (furloughees) that has suffered actual career damage rather than a group whining about their QOL because of their own doing.
3. This TA is not "defeat". Getting a lot for something the company already had and lost with "no" concessions is a win by any metric and yes voters therefore are not "defeatist"
4. Don't get me started on Whiteford and Morse.... I wasn't a member that supported those 2 disasters.... I'm blessed (unlike others) that I have a chance to make that up thru a B fund and yes, I believe the A plan ship has sailed.
5. I'm actually engaged with at least 3 no voters so if I attributed one of their quotes to you my apologies.
6. You and I are not on opposite sides, we are ALPA on opposite sides of an issue. I have never broken ranks, never will. If the TA is voted down I will continue to support ALPA and the membership. I assume if the TA is voted in you will do the same.
7. B52 guy as my posting name suggests, ex zoomie, 7 years active 4 reserves.. Now you know me
I will in fact support a yes vote if this is in fact what the majority wants. I'm not and never have been an ignorant chest thumper. I have strong beliefs but like you will never break ranks because things didn't go my way. Nothing is ever gained by fragmentation unless of course we are talking about things that kill.
Reserve improvements actually benefit a much larger percentage of the pilots than a mere %20. The number you speak of is the approximate percentage of total pilots dedicated to filling reserve positions. You'd have to take into account the many people who 1. Travel through reserve on an initial bid willing to take a calculated risk that they will eventually be a line holder. 2. People who would bid equipment that would make them more money but don't because they know how bad reserve can be.
Reserve was simply NOT addressed by ALPA in these negotiations and this was confirmed in a recent address made by Jay Heppner to Council 34 when a member asked this very question. His response was the company presented us with a concessionary reserve system and Jay just told them to take it off the table. Why he chose to disregard MEC direction on this very issue is appalling at best and a disservice to the entire pilot group.
I agree this TA is not a defeat but a short fall. We are just kicking the can down the road a little further when the time to strike (not job action) is now why the environment is more favorable to us than it has been in many years.
01-11-2016, 05:37 AM
#214
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 846
I understand Staller will always be there in your case - hope you're not working toward "Tool of the Year" over in the Major forum. Did you get a chance to read Flying the Line II Chapter 16?
Here's the link again:
http://www3.alpa.org/publications/Fl...he_Line_II.pdf
As always, call mom and Staller says Hi!
Here's the link again:
http://www3.alpa.org/publications/Fl...he_Line_II.pdf
As always, call mom and Staller says Hi!
01-11-2016, 08:09 AM
#216
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
There is absolutely no comparison between "Hoffa" and any "types" in the pilot ranks. Hyperbolic BS from people who generally dislike unions no matter how much they personally benefit from them.
01-11-2016, 08:18 AM
#217
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2016
Posts: 32
[QUOTE=b52dthdlr;2044599]
I'm glad that we agree that we are on the same side. I'm not privy to MEC negotiations but take you at your word that the reserve subject was tabled without negotiation. If that is true then I agree the negotiation committee did not do their jobs as well as they could have. This TA is imperfect, but for the return of one LOA/MOU I feel that we have extracted maximum value. If the TA is voted in we will see if I and other yes voters were right/wrong. Vote your conscious, I'm not soliciting no voters to change their vote. I'm just advocating for a group of pilots (furloughees) that have been badly beaten down.
This we definitely agree on. Look, we all know this thing is going to pass. In my mind this is unfortunate because in 28 years I have never seen us in a better position to bargain for numerous changes (TO INCLUDE OUR FURLOUGHEES). The very changes that were promised to us when our MEC stated "We'll fix it on the next contract" Well we are 4 months from section 6 openers and the company understands the pilot group is in a very good position to negotiate some meaningful gains and they are expertly manipulating us with a little money in order to push away our leverage in a calculated assessment that times will be a lot different in 2019. Stand up now or hope we can "fix it in the next contract." I prefer to stand up now while our position is favorable.
I'm glad that we agree that we are on the same side. I'm not privy to MEC negotiations but take you at your word that the reserve subject was tabled without negotiation. If that is true then I agree the negotiation committee did not do their jobs as well as they could have. This TA is imperfect, but for the return of one LOA/MOU I feel that we have extracted maximum value. If the TA is voted in we will see if I and other yes voters were right/wrong. Vote your conscious, I'm not soliciting no voters to change their vote. I'm just advocating for a group of pilots (furloughees) that have been badly beaten down.
01-11-2016, 08:20 AM
#218
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
[QUOTE=b52dthdlr;2044599]
I'm glad that we agree that we are on the same side. I'm not privy to MEC negotiations but take you at your word that the reserve subject was tabled without negotiation. If that is true then I agree the negotiation committee did not do their jobs as well as they could have. This TA is imperfect, but for the return of one LOA/MOU I feel that we have extracted maximum value. If the TA is voted in we will see if I and other yes voters were right/wrong. Vote your conscious, I'm not soliciting no voters to change their vote. I'm just advocating for a group of pilots (furloughees) that have been badly beaten down.
In general we are on the same side. The difference lies in how we get there. The negotiation committee not only did not return an agreement within the framework of the proposed negotiations (reserve improvements),
the agreement did not meet the expectations of the pilot survey.
We are all for the furloughees. Although they received a disproportionate level of the beat down, all to some degree have been affected.
I'm glad that we agree that we are on the same side. I'm not privy to MEC negotiations but take you at your word that the reserve subject was tabled without negotiation. If that is true then I agree the negotiation committee did not do their jobs as well as they could have. This TA is imperfect, but for the return of one LOA/MOU I feel that we have extracted maximum value. If the TA is voted in we will see if I and other yes voters were right/wrong. Vote your conscious, I'm not soliciting no voters to change their vote. I'm just advocating for a group of pilots (furloughees) that have been badly beaten down.
the agreement did not meet the expectations of the pilot survey.
We are all for the furloughees. Although they received a disproportionate level of the beat down, all to some degree have been affected.
01-11-2016, 08:29 AM
#219
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
[QUOTE=FlyingGuitar;2044462]
I respect and honor your opinions and your position and appreciate your candor. I agree we are not on opposite sides in battle, we merely disagree on an issue. It is of utmost importance that we carry on with debates like this. I for one am never opposed to changing my stance if someone can present me with facts and strategies developed from said facts that contribute to the betterment for our profession.
I will in fact support a yes vote if this is in fact what the majority wants. I'm not and never have been an ignorant chest thumper. I have strong beliefs but like you will never break ranks because things didn't go my way. Nothing is ever gained by fragmentation unless of course we are talking about things that kill.
Reserve improvements actually benefit a much larger percentage of the pilots than a mere %20. The number you speak of is the approximate percentage of total pilots dedicated to filling reserve positions. You'd have to take into account the many people who 1. Travel through reserve on an initial bid willing to take a calculated risk that they will eventually be a line holder. 2. People who would bid equipment that would make them more money but don't because they know how bad reserve can be.
Reserve was simply NOT addressed by ALPA in these negotiations and this was confirmed in a recent address made by Jay Heppner to Council 34 when a member asked this very question. His response was the company presented us with a concessionary reserve system and Jay just told them to take it off the table. Why he chose to disregard MEC direction on this very issue is appalling at best and a disservice to the entire pilot group.
I agree this TA is not a defeat but a short fall. We are just kicking the can down the road a little further when the time to strike (not job action) is now why the environment is more favorable to us than it has been in many years.
I appreciate and respect your attitude, and share your philosophy that if the memebership votes this down (I'm a yes vote), I will respect that this is the will of the pilot group and strongly support the Section 6 process.
The one thing I disagree with is your perspective of how we ended up with no reserve rule changes, but our disagreement is one of semantics. What I took from what Jay said was that they submitted improvements to reserve, and the company submitted concessions. They quickly realized that this would be a major sticking point in the negotiation so elected to remove it with no change. To me that's not ignoring MEC direction. They DID negotiate on reserve, it's just that those negotiations didn't yield any changes: but it should be noted that the no change was also no concessions.
I respect and honor your opinions and your position and appreciate your candor. I agree we are not on opposite sides in battle, we merely disagree on an issue. It is of utmost importance that we carry on with debates like this. I for one am never opposed to changing my stance if someone can present me with facts and strategies developed from said facts that contribute to the betterment for our profession.
I will in fact support a yes vote if this is in fact what the majority wants. I'm not and never have been an ignorant chest thumper. I have strong beliefs but like you will never break ranks because things didn't go my way. Nothing is ever gained by fragmentation unless of course we are talking about things that kill.
Reserve improvements actually benefit a much larger percentage of the pilots than a mere %20. The number you speak of is the approximate percentage of total pilots dedicated to filling reserve positions. You'd have to take into account the many people who 1. Travel through reserve on an initial bid willing to take a calculated risk that they will eventually be a line holder. 2. People who would bid equipment that would make them more money but don't because they know how bad reserve can be.
Reserve was simply NOT addressed by ALPA in these negotiations and this was confirmed in a recent address made by Jay Heppner to Council 34 when a member asked this very question. His response was the company presented us with a concessionary reserve system and Jay just told them to take it off the table. Why he chose to disregard MEC direction on this very issue is appalling at best and a disservice to the entire pilot group.
I agree this TA is not a defeat but a short fall. We are just kicking the can down the road a little further when the time to strike (not job action) is now why the environment is more favorable to us than it has been in many years.
The one thing I disagree with is your perspective of how we ended up with no reserve rule changes, but our disagreement is one of semantics. What I took from what Jay said was that they submitted improvements to reserve, and the company submitted concessions. They quickly realized that this would be a major sticking point in the negotiation so elected to remove it with no change. To me that's not ignoring MEC direction. They DID negotiate on reserve, it's just that those negotiations didn't yield any changes: but it should be noted that the no change was also no concessions.
01-11-2016, 08:43 AM
#220
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
[QUOTE=gettinbumped;2044670]
I appreciate and respect your attitude, and share your philosophy that if the memebership votes this down (I'm a yes vote), I will respect that this is the will of the pilot group and strongly support the Section 6 process.
The one thing I disagree with is your perspective of how we ended up with no reserve rule changes, but our disagreement is one of semantics. What I took from what Jay said was that they submitted improvements to reserve, and the company submitted concessions. They quickly realized that this would be a major sticking point in the negotiation so elected to remove it with no change. To me that's not ignoring MEC direction. They DID negotiate on reserve, it's just that those negotiations didn't yield any changes: but it should be noted that the no change was also no concessions.
No change to reserve is a concession through the extension of this JCBA. Hope you were able to vote early, yes, and often. 
I appreciate and respect your attitude, and share your philosophy that if the memebership votes this down (I'm a yes vote), I will respect that this is the will of the pilot group and strongly support the Section 6 process.
The one thing I disagree with is your perspective of how we ended up with no reserve rule changes, but our disagreement is one of semantics. What I took from what Jay said was that they submitted improvements to reserve, and the company submitted concessions. They quickly realized that this would be a major sticking point in the negotiation so elected to remove it with no change. To me that's not ignoring MEC direction. They DID negotiate on reserve, it's just that those negotiations didn't yield any changes: but it should be noted that the no change was also no concessions.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
