|
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3464213)
Get real. Just because It's bad for the company doesn't mean it's good for pilots.
There is nothing about this ruling that is the pilots' fault, nor should we be expected to pay a price for it. If we do, then we enabled management to do so. |
I’m sure there’s a happy median. Do I want to do quick turns and rush all day while I wait to eat my meal in the air? Not particularly. I also understand operationally it doesn’t make sense to require breaks or delay flights because we need 30 mins to scarf down our food. I think it’s widely accepted we leave that for once we’re leveled in cruise. Is that a negative thing that we’ve accepted into our normal work culture? Yeah it probably is. Am I smart enough to figure out a solution to fix it while not completely derailing flights and smooth (relative term) operations? Not at all.
|
Originally Posted by THE SHAFT
(Post 3464220)
Sir this is a cockpit not a flight deck
|
Originally Posted by flyprdu
(Post 3464234)
I'm just tired of legacy guys thinking everything is an automatic loss for the pilots. Y'all treat it like a foregone conclusion and you make it self-fulfilling.
There is nothing about this ruling that is the pilots' fault, nor should we be expected to pay a price for it. If we do, then we enabled management to do so. I don’t see anything positive coming out of this for us. |
Originally Posted by flyprdu
(Post 3464234)
I'm just tired of legacy guys thinking everything is an automatic loss for the pilots. Y'all treat it like a foregone conclusion and you make it self-fulfilling.
Reality: The highest cost for airlines is pilots or fuel, depending on the price of oil. If you increase their biggest or second biggest cost by 50% to allow IRO's for lunch breaks, something is going to have to give. If nothing else that would limit future opportunities for contractual gains. Actually as the law is currently written, you'd need to land the plane and get everybody off for 30 mins on any transcon+ leg. Not even sure how you do that over water. Pontoons? Maybe have a cruise liner pre-positioned so after you land on floats people can get off? The USAF is actually working on that believe it or not.
Originally Posted by flyprdu
(Post 3464234)
There is nothing about this ruling that is the pilots' fault, nor should we be expected to pay a price for it. If we do, then we enabled management to do so.
|
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3464372)
No I think it's a ridiculous unintended consequence that's bad for everybody and the law should be changed by Sac, or overruled by congress.
Reality: The highest cost for airlines is pilots or fuel, depending on the price of oil. If you increase their biggest or second biggest cost by 50% to allow IRO's for lunch breaks, something is going to have to give. If nothing else that would limit future opportunities for contractual gains. Actually as the law is currently written, you'd need to land the plane and get everybody off for 30 mins on any transcon+ leg. Not even sure how you do that over water. Pontoons? Maybe have a cruise liner pre-positioned so after you land on floats people can get off? The USAF is actually working on that believe it or not. We don't have any say in which bases they maintain, or at what level. The legacies can't close their Pacific-gateway CA bases, but I wouldn't absolutely put it past AS to actually do that. I suspect there's a real potential for base staff reductions, if for some reason this law doesn't get fixed. Here's where your years of conditioning shows. You expect it to impact the employees. You even support it. Your political biases mixed with Alaska indoctrination have actually made you anti-lunch break. It's impressive. Rather than work to find a legitimate way to comply with the law, you're on your soapbox telling everyone that the most reasonable course of action in your mind is base closure. Not additional crews. Not schedule adjustments. Base closures. Your tacit acceptance of abuse is the only thing that's notable here. |
Originally Posted by flyprdu
(Post 3464480)
If the law is a ridiculous as you say, then why is ALASKA the only airline making threats about it?
Here's where your years of conditioning shows. You expect it to impact the employees. You even support it. Your political biases mixed with Alaska indoctrination have actually made you anti-lunch break. It's impressive. Rather than work to find a legitimate way to comply with the law, you're on your soapbox telling everyone that the most reasonable course of action in your mind is base closure. Not additional crews. Not schedule adjustments. Base closures. Your tacit acceptance of abuse is the only thing that's notable here. |
Originally Posted by miker1
(Post 3464527)
Alaska indoctrination? I think he works for united
An Alaska pilot would toe the company line and expect any sort of expenses to be a deterrence to "growth" or cost pilots money in their "next" contract. Even though Alaska is back to industry-leading profit margins. Rickair is undoubtedly an Alaska Air pilot. |
Originally Posted by flyprdu
(Post 3464553)
A United pilot would understand that there are costs to running an airline. A United pilot would understand that those costs shouldn't come out of the pilot's share.
An Alaska pilot would toe the company line and expect any sort of expenses to be a deterrence to "growth" or cost pilots money in their "next" contract. Even though Alaska is back to industry-leading profit margins. Rickair is undoubtedly an Alaska Air pilot. Alaska error group has always played their work groups against one another. They find it particularly amusing that they can play one workgroup against itself: pilots. having been at QX in 2016 I can tell you they cranked the fear factor to 11 and basically told us "Eat the costs or else" when they wanted us to take pay cuts to get more aircraft. It's a classic stockholm syndrome diagnosis. |
Uh…Rick is Delta.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:04 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands