I don't see how me posting what I want makes the NC's job harder. I understand that what everyone wants is different, and I doubt many of them spend much, if any, time on these web boards anyways. Plus, I'm just one pilot out of 600+ now, they don't need to please me to pass a TA.

It's just been bugging me lately that the majority of guys that I fly with are all in the camp of "we need too see $200/hr to make this a career company!" Then they moan and groan about how they never get the days off they want or the schedule they bid. Newflash: 200/flight hour isn't going to fix that problem.

 

The nmb makes their decisions behind closed doors. You can only negotiate what your self worth will allow, the nmb will do whatever they want. The negotiating committee speaks for me. They are the ones closest to the situation and are doing whatever it is that can be done. They have already proposed the economic sections at the negotiating table. Now it's just a game of delay and enjoy the RLA via the NMB for as much as they will allow if you’re management. Coming down to g4 management's level of what they want; which is sub standard pay and thin to no work rules is not the way to go.

Union security, dues check off, work rules and pay commensurate to our counterparts and we wait till the nmb if ever releases us. Management holds all the cards for now. And I still don't want any watering down of our proposals. That may take years, then so be it we wait.

This idea that home every night is a quantifiable benefit that should be factored into the pay rates, thus we shouldn't be asking the most profitable airline in the world to pay us swa rates or better is ridiculous. In five years we may all be doing overnight trips, just like some do now on vbd, tdy, charters, etc.

 

No, 200 an hour won't fix poor staffing levels. Fixing staffing levels will fix poor staffing levels. You can have one with the other.

 

Home every night is a thing of the past for the Airbus in a Nov or Dec... at least in the FL bases. Scheduled overnights are coming.

 

Not saying you are wrong but wouldn't that just make it easy for management teams everywhere to never allow a group to get released? Just propose stuff the pilot group could never agree to ($20/hour) and leave it in limbo forever?

 

I can't speak for the thought process within the NMB. It just happened in the past few days to the RAH pilots.

 

What would it take to change some rules in the NMB regarding RLA? Is it an act of Congress? Is it a board vote? Seriously, I am surprised that some labor group has not try to change some of the rules, at least to make it more level. Instead of having no timeline to come to an agreement before a cooling off period, say negotiate for 2 years, no agreement - automatic proffer and wait for another 6 months, no agreement - automatic 30 day cooling off agreement. Something like that. How can the rules be proposed to be changed?

 

The NLRB (the non-RLA analog of the NMB) governs most unions of most industries, and it does contain automatic/timeline-based provisions to prevent stalled labor negotiations. We're stuck with the RLA/NMB as a matter of history.

Related note--what ever happend to those CAL guys who were pushing for an Airline Labor Act/Airline Retirement Board? I think it was around 2007-2009--some CAL pilots were trying to raise public awareness about the glaring absurdity of the RLA. Specifically, how railroad workers are stuck with the RLA like we are, but in return they get a massive benefit--they don't pay social security/FICA taxes, they pay into their own federally-managed social insurance scheme, the Railroad Retirement Board.

From Wikipedia: "At the end of fiscal year 2010, the average annuity paid to career rail employees was $2,760 a month, compared to $1,170 a month under Social Security"

 

Here's a good, quick 1-page briefing on the RLA as applied to airlines from 1938 to present: Railway Labor Act - Airline Labor Relations

 

Also, any guestimates on when the best time to join would be for a CVG base?