Originally Posted by
CLazarus
A DAL VB, even if only open for just a month, would be open to bid systemwide (i.e., to ALL pilots on the seniority list). The CO only proceeds with it if there are enough volunteers in the right equipment to make it work. Sure a WB guy ain't gonna be able to bid MCO (well, I suppose it is possible), but if he wants it bad enough and it looks to last I'm sure he can find a way to get there eventually.
So that's new flying that anyone systemwide can bid, except for widebody pilots? You and I have different ideas of systemwide, and I suppose DAL does too. At UAL, new flying = bid opportunities for every single pilot no matter what fleet, seat, or equipment.
I'd prefer to keep it that way.
Originally Posted by
CLazarus
Our MEC told the company we as a pilot group weren't interested. I don't believe ALPA directed that stance. If so, it would be a pretty remarkable bit of defiance for a major ALPA carrier like DAL to ignore the wishes of national (esp when it is headed by a DAL Captain). Anyways, perhaps someone should alert DAL pilots that their brand new DPA has already been gutted (actually, my understanding is their VB test is via a MOU so who knows what your take in that case would be).
There's ALPA National in Herdon, and there's UAL ALPA in Rosemont also known as the UAL MEC. I'm referring to the UAL MEC who are the sole bargaining agent for United pilots and affiliated through ALPA National.
Originally Posted by
CLazarus
I think the clinical term is actually "lurking", I have found it quite enriching to keep up on what is going on industry-wide and ask questions. But ya had to get in a dig somehow I suppose.
You say potato, not a dig at all. I wish more guys would stay informed about the rest of the industry.
It's a shame ALPA won't provide a suitable resource for a dialog across company lines (now that IS a dig).
Originally Posted by
CLazarus
I find that particular statement to be mere window dressing for the masses. I can't imagine that deep down you actually think there will be any new traditional bases opened anytime in the next decade or two. Baring collapse of one of our competitors, there just aren't any realistic places left stateside. But meanwhile, pencil necked Wall Street types keep suggesting we close LAX or IAD and who knows if CLE will be around in a few years?
New flying is alway better because it indicates growth, if it does happen I want staffing of the
new flying to follow our contract. If pilot bases are closed, I also expect the CBA to followed.
Originally Posted by
CLazarus
Point taken actually. However, I also think if the company can't efficiently staff allocated flying there won't be any growth of flying. We certainly seem to have lots of competitors out there who will quickly step into any opening we leave while we argue and bicker over seniority semantics.
I wish the company the best managing a dynamic enterprise, and I'll do my part to succeed, but I'm not going to volunteer to give away my work rules to help them. Especially as you say, they "can't efficiently staff allocated flying".
Originally Posted by
CLazarus
Of all the legs I've flown in the last couple of years, I've flown with FA crews from our smaller FA domiciles maybe a half dozen times tops (LAS/BOS are the only two I can actually recall, on 2-3 legs). They were quite senior. Meanwhile, I've flown many, many trips with extremely junior FAs on reserve some of whom commute. All of the junior ones were from our big domiciles (no CLE crews flown with yet BTW). You will interpret this as abrogation because a small amount of flying has been "taken" from the big domicile for the benefit of those small domicile FAs. I interpret it as honoring the seniority of those small domicile FAs who are senior enough to bid what little flying is available at their home. Remember, I'm talking just tiny fraction of all the available flying seems to be flown by small domicile FAs.
See; Straw Man Argument, See also: False Equivalency,
Flight Attendants work under very different rules and are represented by a different union. Heck, they're not fully merged, so how can any observation you have about commuting FA's have any relevance to the UAL ALPA CBA? I get it, commuting is hard.
Originally Posted by
CLazarus
Anyways, I can make new and different arguments till next year but it is a waste of our time. I think it is safe to say we have our minds made up for now and nothing we say here is going to change them. The DAL test is of interest because its concrete success or failure has the ability to change my mind at least. I'll be lurking all right to see what they think of it. I'm sure you'll want to get in the last word on this thread in the meantime. Merry Christmas.
Tests at DAL will be interesting, but their agreement is different than ours. If it's a success at DAL, that doesn't mean it would be at UAL.
My point is simple: New Flying is addressed in our CBA, ALL new flying. If new flying is announced by the company, we have binding language to follow to staff that flying.