Old 08-28-2010 | 06:33 AM
  #21  
BE19Pilot
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Default

I still say that none of this bodes well for pilots at the regional level. Anyone with more than 5 years of seniority would have a lot to lose in if this plan were to come to fruition. Obviously, the majority of us would want to be at major because that is where the pay, benefits, etc...are superior to what we have at a regional.
There are other ways around this if the justification is safety and standardization, however this costs money...LOTS of money from a training/flight standards perspective. I don't believe that this proposal is under the auspices of trying to achieve a true "single-level of safety" that is a tenet of both ALPA and also government (FAA policy). At least this is what both organizations like to say to the press and flying public. Anyone that truly believes that is naive at best and stupid at worst. "single-level of safety" is a myth.
What this all about is the reality facing the piloting profession in the United States and where most of the flying has been heading, the "regional" (this moniker is also obsolete given they fly mainline routes now). Now that "Open Skies" has become law, we face the very real possibility of cabotage or the so-called "6th freedom" under the Bermuda II agreement (I think that is correct) that defines what a flag carrier can and cannot do.
After all is said and done...2012 age 65 retirement spike flattens, what is going to be left is a whole lot LESS mainline jobs. So, cabotage, open-skies, reduction of capacity, reduction of jobs, etc...Is putting pressure on ALPA to re-trench and cater to the pilots that pay the most dues and butter their bread. I support ALPA and am an ALPA member, but I am learning more and more that irregardless of what propoganda comes out of national. ALPA is geared toward the legacies. They have a lot of work to do to convince many of us in the dregs of aviation otherwise. They want all the protections, all the security of maintaining their position. As we simply called it in the military, "a rice bowl issue"...

Last edited by BE19Pilot; 08-28-2010 at 06:33 AM. Reason: spelling
Reply