AUG/SEPT 2012 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[EastUS1]

You don't have to trust the company. The MOU says if they shrink our side, they have to shrink the AA side at least twice as much.

....And you apparently trust them even that far...? Ok then. I'd first like to have whatever supposedly ironclad/can't-possibly-be-misinterpreted-in any-court or in any way disregarded at management's whims language expressly explained and defined for all to be comfortable with....just sayin'....

All can and should accept whatever they see fit to. Personally; I believe this potential agreement to be full of holes, and one that doesn't begin to place any real security or even adequate compensation on the table.

 

[A320 Driver]

....And you apparently trust them even that far...? Ok then. I'd first like to have whatever supposedly ironclad/can't-possibly-be-misinterpreted-in any-court or in any way disregarded at mangement whims language expressly explained and defined for all to be comfortable with....just sayin'....

I trust our advisors. Why don't you volunteer to stay on LOA93 where it's safe and the rest of us will take our chances with the MOU? K?

Driver...

 

[EastUS1]

I trust our advisors. Why don't you volunteer to stay on LOA93 and the rest of us will take our chances with the MOU? K?

Driver...

"...will take our chances with the MOU..." is exactly what I'm concerned you would be doing....to say the very least. Everyone must decide what's acceptable for them, and I don't question anyone's right to do so. I would strongly suggest that this be given a great deal of thought before jumping into any poorly lit alleys though.....

Consider even just the issue of min fleet versus min block hours. Min fleet requires min crew staffing, while min block hours, whatever anyone says, are subject to creative accounting. Think back to acars logic changes...then consider just how the company dealt with the min hours for the west issue, etc. Anywhere an opening for contract abuse exists...it's a VERY safe bet to believe all such would be fully exploited to the work force's detriment. Should we proceed on to surrendering scope entirely?

 

[Piedmont1984]

I agree that the merger doesn't make sense if they plan to shrink and cede even more market share. But domestic market share can be maintained and increased quite nicely with more 190 series aircraft than God can count.

So retire/return/replace larger gage single aisle aircraft with super RJs paying category C wages.

If you ain't gonna shrink a part of your fleet - why ask for a free hand to do just that?

 

[A320 Driver]

"...will take our chances with the MOU..." is exactly what I'm concerned you would be doing....to say the very least. Everyone must decide what's acceptable for them, and I don't question anyone's right to do so. I would strongly suggest that this be given a great deal of thought before jumping into any poorly lit alleys though.....

Consider even just the issue of min fleet versus min block hours. Min fleet requires min crew staffing, while min block hours, whatever anyone says, are subject to creative accounting. Think back to acars logic changes...then consider just how the company dealt with the min hours for the west issue, etc. Anywhere an opening for contract abuse exists...it's a VERY safe bet to believe all such would be fully exploited to the work force's detriment. Should we proceed on to surrendering scope entirely?

I sat in USAPA headquarters for 3 days. I heard everything I need to hear. I trust our advisors and they say don't pass this up.

Nuff said.

Driver...

 

[A320 Driver]

I agree that the merger doesn't make sense if they plan to shrink and cede even more market share. But domestic market share can be maintained and increased quite nicely with more 190 series aircraft than God can count.

So retire/return/replace larger gage single aisle aircraft with super RJs paying category C wages.

If you ain't gonna shrink a part of your fleet - why ask for a free hand to do just that?

They don't have a free hand. Any 190s past 30 (we have 15 now) have to be split between us and AA.

Driver...

 

[EastUS1]

I sat in USAPA headquarters for 3 days. I heard everything I need to hear. I trust our advisors and they say don't pass this up.

Nuff said.

Driver...

I respect your getting enough information to feel comfortable voting. If this mou comes to pass....well....I hope I'm completely wrong and you're correct in your decision.

 

[EastUS1]

If you ain't gonna shrink a part of your fleet - why ask for a free hand to do just that?

Indeed.

 

[Piedmont1984]

They don't have a free hand. Any 190s past 30 (we have 15 now) have to be split between us and AA.

Driver...

That's my point. AA has lots of old MD80s. I see a 190 tsunami coming.

 

[EastUS1]

That's my point. AA has lots of old MD80s. I see a 190 tsunami coming.

And...what was that fabulous pay rate for them going to be again....?

 

[A320 Driver]

That's my point. AA has lots of old MD80s. I see a 190 tsunami coming.

Then what do you suppose they will be doing with the 400+ A320/B737s they have on order? BTW, how many 190s do they have on order...uh...NONE.

Driver...

 

[Piedmont1984]

Then what do you suppose they will be doing with the 400+ A320/B737s they have on order? BTW, how many 190s do they have on order...uh...NONE.

Driver...

If they were given unfettered access to 190s, do you think they may try to extricate themselves from these other aircraft orders?

Honest question.

 

[A320 Driver]

If they were given unfettered access to 190s, do you think they may try to extricate themselves from these other aircraft orders?

Honest question.

I believe as the RJ contracts expire, they will bring much of that flying, with 190s or otherwise, back in house where it belongs. And no, I don't think they want to shrink capacity. Parker has said repeatedly that the industry has pretty much rightsized and there is no need for further reductions. We've seen first hand how shrinking yourself into profitability works. Short answer...it didn't. It very nearly did us in.

Honest answer.

 

[Piedmont1984]

The company seems to like the phrase - force majeure. I wonder if they employ the same clause with the aircraft manufacturers?

There was no indication in the MOU language that RJ shrinkage was on the horizon, not even the cosmological event horizon.

 

[A320 Driver]

The company seems to like the phrase - force majeure. I wonder if they employ the same clause with the aircraft manufacturers?

There was no indication in the MOU language that RJ shrinkage was on the horizon, not even the cosmological event horizon.

True, none in the MOU. But plenty has been said about the huge cost disadvantage the 50 seaters have. See what Delta did with Comair? Those contracts won't last forever and I'd bet money they won't be renewed.

Driver..