US Pilot Labor Thread 9/7-14

[ussnark]

Considering the complete lack of USAPA's leadership in seeking any meaningful communication, negotiation or compromise with those of us from the west, I believe I'll take out attorney's advice before yours.

With several gross inaccuracies, did the writer even try to "vet" any of the assertions she (I'll assume the writer is a "she") made? Or did she happen to get her drinks bought at the local west pilot watering hole, in return for listening to semi-lucid rants?

About the "nic". Your own attorney characterized it as a "negotiating ploy". I would assume even the east pilots want you to listen to your attorney, for once.

I still find this difficult to see members of a profession waste resources over a misunderstanding about what an arbitration is binding to, as well as the limiting criteria governing the boundaries of said "ruling".

 

[ussnark]

ONE MORE POST!!!

It is a sad person indeed, who is willing to reduce themselves to commenting on the quantity of posts, as if that has anything to do with the quality of each post.

 

[TBONEJ4J]

Wow. A few pages of good exchanges about Section 1 violations - then back to the same old same old.

As to the current state of mind that the company has about the scope relief they think they have, consider the CRJ-1000. It is essentially an E190, but Bombardier claims 15% lower operating cost. First deliveries will be next year.

Now if you look at the stats for the CRJ-1000, and then look at what the company thinks they have in the way of scope relief, it's not a big leap to think that is what they are thinking about putting at an express carrier. If so, the E190s will go away pretty quickly I would think, or at least there will be no more coming.

To the Moderator:

Can the Seniority integration argument be placed into a specific thread?

Because there are many Labor issues that are not getting the chance to be aired on this forum without being overwhelmed by the same old descent into east v. west, and Nic, and Leonidas, and lawsuit, etc., etc. :down:

h34r:

 

[Bus Driver]

ATTENTION:

(Because you guys have not been paying attention . . . )

FR8MSTR had it a few posts ago, but you guys were too busy with your egos and flamethrowers . . .

If you take the past 48 hours and the often discussed LRJ number of 96, and ADD the 14 CRJ-700s at PSA which meet the definition of a large RJ, then you get 110 large RJ's and the +17 reported by USAPA.

Bus Driver

PS: the training center in CLt is as busy as ever, no reports of any training cancellations . . . limited classroom space with overflows, just about all sims working 4 sessions a day.

 

[electricjet98]

With several gross inaccuracies, did the writer even try to "vet" any of the assertions she (I'll assume the writer is a "she") made? Or did she happen to get her drinks bought at the local west pilot watering hole, in return for listening to semi-lucid rants?

Do you suppose she may have went to the same school of journalism as Ted Reed?

About the "nic". Your own attorney characterized it as a "negotiating ploy". I would assume even the east pilots want you to listen to your attorney, for once.

Do you recall when he said that? It was while it was being withheld by ALPA; prior to it being passed to LCC and accepted by same. So at the time Freund said that, it was true. Wye River was also at that time and meaningful compromise was a possibility. USAPA marked the end of negotiability at that time. It is now up to USAPA to openly and forthrightly seek compromise with the west if they want the nic to be neutered.

I still find this difficult to see members of a profession waste resources over a misunderstanding about what an arbitration is binding to, as well as the limiting criteria governing the boundaries of said "ruling".

True, but it is incumbant upon USAPA to realize their errors.

 

[ussnark]

Do you suppose she may have went to the same school of journalism as Ted Reed?

As much as I dislike Ted Reed, at least he does "due diligence" and does not depend on late evening barroom hot air to fill pages.

Wye River was also at that time and meaningful compromise was a possibility.

Too bad ALPA blew it for you. BTW, you got your timeline messed up.

True, but it is incumbant upon USAPA to realize their errors.

Indeed. That is why USAPA has proceeded as they have, recognizing ALPA's errors and making constitutional corrections in order to become a union, as opposed to a (rather expensive) good ole boys club.

 

[700UW]

You all forget, Ted is a bit biased he worked for US Airways in Corporate Communications after he was fired from the Charlotte Observer.

 

[prechilill]

It is a sad person indeed, who is willing to reduce themselves to commenting on the quantity of posts, as if that has anything to do with the quality of each post.

3000 posts of standup comedy... Who couldn't like that?

 

[oldiebutgoody]

3000 posts of standup comedy... Who couldn't like that?

Looks like you have about half as many. But yours are twice as funny, so it's a wash!

 

[BoeingBoy]

If you take the past 48 hours and the often discussed LRJ number of 96, and ADD the 14 CRJ-700s at PSA which meet the definition of a large RJ, then you get 110 large RJ's and the +17 reported by USAPA.

The CRJ-700 may well count as part of the 93 limit contained in the TA - it'd depends on the West contract and I don't have a copy of that. LSJ is really a misnomer since that's a creature that exists only in the East contract, though I've used it as shorthand also.

Does someone have the West contract language that defines the seating/weight/whatever limits that must be exceeded before an RJ counts toward the limit (I think they were limited in number to 38 or so, which the TA changed to 93)?

Jim

 

[ussnark]

3000 posts of standup comedy... Who couldn't like that?

Yes, truth wrapped in humor. Just like Mark Twain.

Glad it amused you. Sorry you haven't learned anything.

 

[ussnark]

You all forget, Ted is a bit biased he worked for US Airways in Corporate Communications after he was fired from the Charlotte Observer.

Frankly, Ted's history is irrelevant. My comment was about his writing style and the credibility of what he wrote, universes above what iamstupid of Phx free press has to offer.

 

[GorgeousGeorge]

Day Two of the 103rd Executive Board Meeting


The second day of ALPA’s 103rd Executive Board meeting featured ASTAR Air Cargo MEC Chairman, Capt. Pat Walsh, who reported on the status of his pilot group’s fight to save their jobs. As previously reported, ASTAR pilots were negotiating their latest contract at the same time that Deutsche Post, which owns DHL, was in talks to transfer all of ASTAR’s flying to competitor UPS.

Walsh lauded ALPA president, Capt. John Prater, for his tireless support of ASTAR pilots and for testifying before the House Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill yesterday. Walsh also thanked his own and other pilots for attending the hearing.

ALPA executive vice president, Capt. Mark Seal (UAL), acknowledged tomorrow’s seven-year anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the brave crews who piloted Flights 93 and 175 on that fateful day. “Let us never forget—thank you,†he concluded.

U.S. vice presidential candidate, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), called in from the campaign trail to discuss the importance of appointing cabinet secretaries and agency heads who will be open to labor’s view. Biden, who is former chairman of the Senate’s Judiciary Committee, discussed his support to remedy bankruptcy laws so that management cannot decimate labor contracts and sidestep collective bargaining responsibilities. He also stated his opposition to foreign control of U.S. airlines.
“We share the same concerns and values,†Biden told members of the Executive Board.

Capt. Prater shared his thoughts with Executive Board members about the upcoming U.S. presidential and congressional elections. “What happens in Washington affects each of us,†he stressed, noting that members should be mindful of the candidates’ position statements and their records regarding labor, specifically pilot issues.

The Executive Board passed a resolution that will form a committee to develop a national seniority protocol and ways to implement one. Look for more information on this ALPA initiative soon.

The Board also passed a resolution codifying the specific condition in which the Association will support the use of the Multi-crew Pilot License approach to pilot training. Additionally, the Board passed a resolution outlining ALPA’s position regarding a new national energy policy.
The Board recognized the representatives of CommutAir, who attended the pilot group’s first Executive Board meeting.

The Midwest MEC received approval for a Major Contingency Fund allocation to finance special communications efforts to fend off attacks from management.

Delta MEC chairman, Capt. Lee Moak, announced a charity golf tournament sponsored by the Delta Pilots Charitable Fund, which will take place Oct. 18 in Las Vegas. Proceeds from the tournament will benefit research for childhood cancer. Details about the tournament will be posted on the Delta pilots’ public website at dal.alpa.org soon.

 

[Elevation]

The CRJ-700 may well count as part of the 93 limit contained in the TA - it'd depends on the West contract and I don't have a copy of that. LSJ is really a misnomer since that's a creature that exists only in the East contract, though I've used it as shorthand also.

Does someone have the West contract language that defines the seating/weight/whatever limits that must be exceeded before an RJ counts toward the limit (I think they were limited in number to 38 or so, which the TA changed to 93)?

Jim

1.D.2.b

i.The Company shall not allow any aircraft
with a maximum seating configuration
of more than 84 seats (or more
than 86 seats if there are no First Class
seats) and/or a certificated maximum
take off weight of more than 90,000 pounds to operate in revenue service.

ii.The Company shall not allow more than
thirty-eight (38) aircraft with a maximum
seating configuration of 71-84 seats (or
up to 86 seats if there are no First Class
seats) (i.e., CRJ-900 or equivalent aircraft)
to be operating in revenue service
at any given time, except as provided in
Subsection 1.D.2.b.v.

iii.The Company shall not allow a total of
more than fifty (50) CRJ-900 or equivalent
aircraft and/or aircraft with a maximum
seating configuration of 51-70
seats (i.e., CRJ-700 or equivalent aircraft)
to be operating in revenue service
at any given time, except as provided in
Subsection 1.D.2.b.v.

iv.The Company shall not allow a total of
more than seventy-five (75) CRJ-900 or
equivalent aircraft and/or CRJ-700 or
equivalent aircraft and/or aircraft with a
maximum seating configuration of 50
seats and less (i.e., CRJ-200 or equivalent
aircraft) to be operating in revenue
service at any given time, except as provided
in Subsection 1.D.2.b.v.

v.For every two (2) aircraft in excess of 145
that are added to the Company’s mainline
fleet in revenue service, the Company
may allow three (3) additional CRJ900
or equivalent aircraft to be operated
in revenue service; or for every one (1)
aircraft in excess of 145 that is added to
the Company’s mainline fleet in revenue
service, the Company may allow two (2)
CRJ-700 or equivalent aircraft or three
(3) CRJ-200 or equivalent aircraft to be
operated in revenue service; or any combination
of the foregoing. For purposes
of this Subsection 1.D.2., mainline aircraft
“in revenue serviceâ€￾ includes delivered
aircraft in maintenance and/or designated
as a spare.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Thanks.

On first glance it appears that section VIII B of the TA modifies the West contract to limit RJ's operated as West Express to 88/90 seats, an increase from 84/86 seats.

TA section VIII C modifies both West and East contracts to allow the number of CRJ900/equivalent to 93 combined - a change to subsection ii through iv of the West contract and the BK1 & 2 LOA's of the East contract. Unfortunately, I don't have the East LOA's - computer housekeeping did away with them a while back - so don't really know the precise changes made to them. It may be that the CRJ700's at PSA count as part of the 93 - it all depends on wording, and the TA doesn't break it down by (size) small jet the way the East LOA's do.

Jim