So here I sit and there is nothing but speculation within my office. Not one single manager has been able or willing to comment on the possibility of getting RJ''s at either PDT or ALLEY. Why is it a big secret? I don''t forsee a big bailout of employee''s by the WO who ends up retaining DHC-8''s. After all where would one go in this job market? My perspective may be wrong but that is how I see it.
WO ''s & RJ''s
- Thread starter dash8dr
- Start date
I heard that they''re going to bring out the trailers and re-open the remote ramp. If that means anything to you?
US management has agreed with Mainline ALPA the CRJ-705 violates the pilot scope clause. Until this issue is dealt with, in my opinion, further "wholly owned" RJ deployment will not occur. I expect more news on this issue in the future.
Best regards,
Chip
Best regards,
Chip
oldiebutgoody
Veteran
They really can''t. They can negotiate payrates amd workrules, however. Another thing they can''t do is keep the company from closing down a subsidiary (i.e.wholly owned) or two.
- Thread Starter
- #6
I guess maybe I was born in the wrong part of the country. (Minnesota farm boy) I just don''t understand how a labor group can dicate the type of equipment a company operates. I understand the need for the labor group to have inputs on work rules, but why does a labor group have anything to say about equipment.
IMHO if I owned a company where labor started to dictate to me who, what, how when and where I would shut it down. An employer has the following obligations: provide the training, tools, facilities, and equipment along with a paycheck to do a given job. The employee has the obligation to perform each task assigned to the best of his ability with what he has been provided. Given those obligations how does an employee tell an employer what type of equipment is acceptable or unacceptable if it is not a safety hazzard?
I am not trying to say management is omnipotent or am I trying to say I am a management supporter. I am trying to say things seem to have gotten out of hand as far as labor groups feeling that they run the company. If you want to run a company, start your own business and leave the rest of us who want to put in a honest days work for an honest days pay alone.
I know this comes off as pro management but that is not where I''m at. I am tired of sleepless nights and wondering if I will have a place to live and food to eat in two months, because some labor group won''t agree to a type of equpiment.
END OF RANT
IMHO if I owned a company where labor started to dictate to me who, what, how when and where I would shut it down. An employer has the following obligations: provide the training, tools, facilities, and equipment along with a paycheck to do a given job. The employee has the obligation to perform each task assigned to the best of his ability with what he has been provided. Given those obligations how does an employee tell an employer what type of equipment is acceptable or unacceptable if it is not a safety hazzard?
I am not trying to say management is omnipotent or am I trying to say I am a management supporter. I am trying to say things seem to have gotten out of hand as far as labor groups feeling that they run the company. If you want to run a company, start your own business and leave the rest of us who want to put in a honest days work for an honest days pay alone.
I know this comes off as pro management but that is not where I''m at. I am tired of sleepless nights and wondering if I will have a place to live and food to eat in two months, because some labor group won''t agree to a type of equpiment.
END OF RANT
dash8dr -
I guess it depends on whose ox is getting gored, doesn''t it? The primary job of a union is to protect their jobs. If there is no scope, management can hold bidding wars and outsource union jobs to contractors who pay low wages and benefits. Without scope, unionizing is a waste of time and money. As it is now, ALPA and especially the APA has given away very large portions of the scope clauses that protect the junior members . . . . so . . . . out the door they go . . . . or they can agree to work for half the money they used to, with no retirement. Unionism is all but dead in this industry.
I guess it depends on whose ox is getting gored, doesn''t it? The primary job of a union is to protect their jobs. If there is no scope, management can hold bidding wars and outsource union jobs to contractors who pay low wages and benefits. Without scope, unionizing is a waste of time and money. As it is now, ALPA and especially the APA has given away very large portions of the scope clauses that protect the junior members . . . . so . . . . out the door they go . . . . or they can agree to work for half the money they used to, with no retirement. Unionism is all but dead in this industry.
----------------
On 6/18/2003 11:03:57 AM dash8dr wrote:
I guess maybe I was born in the wrong part of the country. (Minnesota farm boy) I just don''t understand how a labor group can dicate the type of equipment a company operates. I understand the need for the labor group to have inputs on work rules, but why does a labor group have anything to say about equipment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The company freely signed on to what is in the contact, they were not under duress. If we didn''t have contacts provided by organized labor the middle class would vanish instantly instead of eroding away as it is doing today. Read labor history, read history period and see what man does against fellow man when there are no restrictions to stop the powerful. Checks and balances are required in an imperfect society otherwise workers would be exploited only being a notch above slavery. Labor unions are not perfect and with the rules comes heartache for some but without them one can only imagine the damage Dave’s hammer would yield! It would once again be the very rich and powerful and the very poor drones trying survive a day to day existence. You mentioned start your own company, go ahead and do it then, and if you think living with unions is tough, try going it alone in this cutthroat world.
On 6/18/2003 11:03:57 AM dash8dr wrote:
I guess maybe I was born in the wrong part of the country. (Minnesota farm boy) I just don''t understand how a labor group can dicate the type of equipment a company operates. I understand the need for the labor group to have inputs on work rules, but why does a labor group have anything to say about equipment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The company freely signed on to what is in the contact, they were not under duress. If we didn''t have contacts provided by organized labor the middle class would vanish instantly instead of eroding away as it is doing today. Read labor history, read history period and see what man does against fellow man when there are no restrictions to stop the powerful. Checks and balances are required in an imperfect society otherwise workers would be exploited only being a notch above slavery. Labor unions are not perfect and with the rules comes heartache for some but without them one can only imagine the damage Dave’s hammer would yield! It would once again be the very rich and powerful and the very poor drones trying survive a day to day existence. You mentioned start your own company, go ahead and do it then, and if you think living with unions is tough, try going it alone in this cutthroat world.
oldiebutgoody
Veteran
Don''t forget that the idea of "scope" protection was something the company offered in exchange for something else in the contracts. It wasn''t something that they just decided to "give" to labor for nothing. Money, lifestyle or workrules were exchanged for that protection. Now, management MUST live by their agreements (or so we would like to believe).
----------------
On 6/17/2003 10:25:41 PM Chip Munn wrote:
US management has agreed with Mainline ALPA the CRJ-705 violates the pilot scope clause. Until this issue is dealt with, in my opinion, further "wholly owned" RJ deployment will not occur. I expect more news on this issue in the future.
Best regards,
Chip
----------------
As someone else mentioned, if the CRJ-705''s are not acceptable to ALPA as RJ''s, then what would keep Dave from putting them at Mainline and parking 25 737''s?On 6/17/2003 10:25:41 PM Chip Munn wrote:
US management has agreed with Mainline ALPA the CRJ-705 violates the pilot scope clause. Until this issue is dealt with, in my opinion, further "wholly owned" RJ deployment will not occur. I expect more news on this issue in the future.
Best regards,
Chip
----------------
oldiebutgoody
Veteran
----------------
On 6/18/2003 8:00:49 PM OldpropGuy wrote:
As someone else mentioned, if the CRJ-705''s are not acceptable to ALPA as RJ''s, then what would keep Dave from putting them at Mainline and parking 25 737''s?
----------------
Probably nothing. But they would have to negotiate new pay and work rules to put it on mainline. I''d bet they would be real similar to 737 rates (or at least the old RJ rate- F28). That might be a great way for ALPA to recover from their blunder of making mainline pilots who get displaced to MDA start at first year pay. We can only hope.On 6/18/2003 8:00:49 PM OldpropGuy wrote:
As someone else mentioned, if the CRJ-705''s are not acceptable to ALPA as RJ''s, then what would keep Dave from putting them at Mainline and parking 25 737''s?
----------------
Bluestreaking:
I have not seem a CRJ-705 delivery schedule and the company agreed in a letter from Jerry Glass the airline will not operate this aircraft without ALPA's consent. The company sweetened the offer to permit these aircraft to enter service, but up to this point ALPA has not agreed to the company's proposal. The company can deploy the CRJ-700 and does have firm order and reconfirmed order positions; however, the delivery schedule has not been publicly announced.
Best regards,
Chip
I have not seem a CRJ-705 delivery schedule and the company agreed in a letter from Jerry Glass the airline will not operate this aircraft without ALPA's consent. The company sweetened the offer to permit these aircraft to enter service, but up to this point ALPA has not agreed to the company's proposal. The company can deploy the CRJ-700 and does have firm order and reconfirmed order positions; however, the delivery schedule has not been publicly announced.
Best regards,
Chip
oldiebutgoody
Veteran
----------------
On 6/19/2003 12:25:50 PM dfw79 wrote:
Maybe some year people will actually call it the CRJ-700 Series 705 instead of CRJ-705 (which doesn''t exist...unless you want to call the CRJ-700 Series 701 the CRJ-701). How about forget the CRJ-700 family and just go with CRJ-200s and let the WO''s fly em?
----------------
Gee, the last time I saw this stupid rant, it had your name on it too. Who really cares what you call it? Apparently only you!On 6/19/2003 12:25:50 PM dfw79 wrote:
Maybe some year people will actually call it the CRJ-700 Series 705 instead of CRJ-705 (which doesn''t exist...unless you want to call the CRJ-700 Series 701 the CRJ-701). How about forget the CRJ-700 family and just go with CRJ-200s and let the WO''s fly em?
----------------
Maybe some year people will actually call it the CRJ-700 Series 705 instead of CRJ-705 (which doesn''t exist...unless you want to call the CRJ-700 Series 701 the CRJ-701). How about forget the CRJ-700 family and just go with CRJ-200s and let the WO''s fly em?
av8or
Advanced
just showing my ignorance here i reckon, but then, there technically aren''t any stupid questions.
what exactly is the difference/big deal with the 705 that alpas pitchin a fit? it would have 70 seats correct?
what exactly is the difference/big deal with the 705 that alpas pitchin a fit? it would have 70 seats correct?
