|
|
Originally Posted by 135TOAD
(Post 1477848)
Where will the 3rd 717 base be located? Any word on 717 delayed deliveries? I just noticed in the monthly update that there will be no published rotations for the 717 in Oct.
|
Originally Posted by Splash
(Post 1477842)
Thanks. My "views" are that ALPA dues have gone down since you and I have been ALPA pilots. We've both received a refund on our dues this year. Are you telling me your views are different than mine on this?
My "view" is that ALPA dues don't go up automatically during section six as they would under DPA. Is your view the same or different? My "view" is that you and I have never had a gap in "special circumstances" as defined by the DPA constitution that would have allowed the dues rate to get down to 1% under the DPA formula. Can you enlighten my view by finding a period we've experienced that would have led to us getting to 1%? If my "views" are off-base, please adjust them with facts I may be missing. If you can't do that, can we change "views" to "reasonable analyses I agree with"? :) I agree with you! You are certainly not an expert in this area. Here's my evidence: a. You got a dues refund this year. That makes, "keeps every penny" wrong regardless of "view". b. If ALPA "keeps every penny", then DPA would too. ALPA uses dues to pay flight pay loss. So would DPA. ALPA uses money to pay for services. So would DPA. So as long as we don't experience any major events until we build up a war chest, we will be ok? Looking back over our careers, can you give me a period of time with no major events that was long enough to build up a comfortable war chest under DPA's constitution? Nobody has left ALPA?:confused: Why not? Thanks. I'm glad to hear that. That's my view too. I look forward to you helping me with my other "views" by providing some facts. But as I've said earlier, if you just can't live with a 0.5% dues increase for special circumstances being done without MEMRAT, send a resolution to your block rep and I'll back you 100%. Carl |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1477843)
We have to consider all possibilities. USAPA's experience is a possibility. Don't forget about APA. It's a reality, & we have to accept it.
You guys got the floor for a while...off to play golf. Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1477861)
You bet. The possibilities are very concerning with the TWA pilots lawsuit, and the United lawsuit.
You guys got the floor for a while...off to play golf. Carl |
Originally Posted by SawF16
(Post 1477460)
I see exactly what you are saying, and I can see how on the surface that may intimidate folks. Not to get too far into the weeds, but if you are talking Alaska, they are ALPA as well, which would indicate ALPA merger policy. I doubt that any ALPA/ALPA merger with our group would end in an amicable non arbitrated list; I think most of us would expect it to go to arbitration. I'm no ALPA policy wonk, but I don't believe that "pay rates" are part of the ALPA merger policy. The considerations in that case: "in no particular order and with no particular weight now include but are not limited to career expectations, longevity, and status and category."
Yes I realize that pay rates can certainly be brought up due to the "not limited to" clause, but I think we will find the mergers which have been arbitrated using this methodology haven't really included it...... Before I go off the deep end here, maybe I can get you to consider something. Ok, two things: #1: Arbitrators and their type (lawyers and judges) look at most things by who got, or who will get financially harmed. You can argue that you deserve Christmas off and your pick of the trips with all the great layovers all you want, but if it isn't costing you any money, they don't care. #2: With #1 in mind, and you wanting a pay system where all captains get paid captain pay (with longevity) and all first officers get paid first office pay (with longevity), are you not putting in a system where both pilot groups have the same career expectations? (Career expectations to arbitrators means, how much money did you expect to make over your career.) Are you not putting in a system where both pilot groups are all in the same category and class? (Captain & First Officer pay without aircraft consideration means you have just those two categories, right?) Are you not putting in a system where longevity is already accounted for? (If a 20 year captain will make more money in his 21st year, and then even more in his 22nd year, no matter what, then as an arbitrator, I don't have to account for him stagnating later on because I put him under someone on the list who has less longevity, right?) With these things in mind, if we were going to a captain pay and first officer pay system, if we merged with Alaska, Jet Blue, Spirit, or Hawaiian, why wouldn't an arbitrator just put in a straight ratio list from top to bottom? (Actually, for reasons I won't get into, we might even get less than a straight ratio list.) Geeze. It turned long, anyway. Sorry. :o |
I sure wish we could get a separate thread for all this union talk.
|
Originally Posted by 135TOAD
(Post 1477848)
Where will the 3rd 717 base be located? Any word on 717 delayed deliveries? I just noticed in the monthly update that there will be no published rotations for the 717 in Oct.
|
Originally Posted by DLpilot
(Post 1477871)
I sure wish we could get a separate thread for all this union talk.
|
Originally Posted by Rogue24
(Post 1477558)
NewK is also very well versed on the legal and arbitration systems. I would take what he say with more weight than the next guy wrt to these matters. Seniority is forever...
Originally Posted by SawF16
(Post 1477647)
Not to be snarky, but the attorney who represented US Airways, Northwest, and Continental during their recent seniority arbitrations (Katz I believe?) is also very well versed on the legal and arbitration systems. That experience hasn't really paid off very well for his clients, although I'm quite certain he has made out very well despite never actually being on the side with the greatest influence on the final list in those cases.
No, I am not comparing NewK to Katz, I hold NewK in great esteem. He is one of the few APC posters that is willing to have a discussion absent a great deal of the emotion that tends to bubble up here. Saw, I still have to look at the new UAL SLI, but I think I'm arguing what every attorney in every SLI, on both sides normally argue during the proceedings. "This merger is going to cost my pilots money!" Didn't the arbitrators in the DAL/NWA proceedings accept part of the NWA argument and give us credit for upcoming retirements? Why? Because of money. It's all about the money and if you equal things (pay) out seat wise, money is no longer a factor, and straight ratio will probably be applied every time. Even if we merge with a company that operates C-172's. Well, that may be taking it a bit far, but you know what I mean. :o |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1477841)
There are only 2 seats that matter. I am seriously lost as to why you think a total seat count on the airframes mean anything. WhoGAS?
It sounds great if all we consider is the 2 seats that matter, but it's a lot of growth. And given our love for capacity neutral I was wondering if the all growth statements were accurate. And let's say they are, don't we need to be hiring a heck of a lot more than 300 pilots in 2014 and if we are willing to announce orders we should be willing to announce more hiring. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:33 AM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands