Re quoted without comment....

 

It's absolutely essential that pilots see the flying they're giving away as beneath them for scope relief to work. If fact many mainline pilots see regional pilots as beneath them when such is not the case. This leads to a vicious cycle in which the union is forced to give up further aircraft rather than fight a battle that only benefits pilots that its core constituency views as not worthy.

Management over the years has subscribed to the cut costs vs raising prices philosophy in trying to become or remain profitable. The problem with this model is it assumes every employee is required to work as productively and efficiently as possible to make the operation viable with such cost cutting. Pilots thus have bent over backwards to ensure the operation is running smoothly and on time. Which as a result, management, over the years, has been able to cut the rank and file employees down to the minimum that that extra pilot productivity level supports. If pilots were to suddenly pull that support or any group for that matter, the operation would likely grind to a halt. This is the only leverage pilots have left as the years of lobbying the government, gaming the court system, corruption, and a whole other list of factors has pretty much muted the effect of unions.

 

Waves,

I don't think that we as pilots are running this airline. The way I look at it, the airline is asking us if we like this proposed contract. In the mean time they can fly whatever routes they want. They can hire whoever they want. If this TA passes, they can pay and work me as they propose. But, until then, it's up to me to tell them if I like what they are proposing. I suggest that if you don't like what they are proposing that you owe it to yourself to vote no now, because if you have complaints later, it won't matter.

Expressing how you feel about this TA is not trying to run the airline, it's letting the airline know how you would like to be "run" as an employee for the next 3-5 years.

Now is the time to do it.

 

Once again spoken as if we're in charge. But I will agree with your premise. I would like to see a change to where and how far they fly them also.

 

We are in charge of allowing the cap to be raised. I do agree with your second part though.

 

Not if ALK gets to them first. Rumors about over there of a HNL base and then some.

 

An ALK-HA merger huh....I can't wait till we start a codeshare with them.

 

There was a lot of talk about it two years ago, but the then current ALK CEO declined. Apparently its heating up there again.

As for the CS, if its called ALK, its 35% of the seats and already exists.

 

I agree whole heartedly with you that if you don’t like what you see here and you’re OK with starting the renegotiation process, then vote no. I don’t have a problem with that at all. Like I have said all along, “I have only voted yes one time in twenty some years.” It’s not the expression of how one feels about the TA that I’m talking about. Rather it is the insistence of some that we have more control than we actually do. That going back to the table will bring about wonderful gains and changes. I would be great if we could, but I just don’t think its reality. Also, it seems like the consensus on here is that because we are finally making a profit after a recent decade of hemorrhaging red ink and incurring huge debt, that we now have some huge magical leverage position. I wish it were true, but I don’t share that philosophy. Incidentally, I have seen plenty of posts saying what they won’t accept, but not many saying how the current RJ problem should be fixed and what they would accept. In other words, they won’t accept this solution but have no real solutions of their own. Although a Sunset Agreement may be great for us, it is not a financially logical solution to the company. BTW: If I were in charge, I would just order a bunch of 777’s and base them in SLC and then block everybody from transferring here.

 

I do believe there have been solutions presented here. I have offered ideas as well.