Sounds like the rumor mill is lighting up with a bunch of simultaneous contractual outrages. Probably mostly or all "throw aways" as I don't see us falling for any of the big ones. Or maybe they float 4 outrages and "settle" for one. Shirly we wouldn't be that easy though. Worth remaining vigilant and pulling the panic cord if any of them are true of course. Add to the outrages the usual suspects like scope relief (more large RJ's, even larger RJ's, code sharing with regionals in super large RJ's, redefining block time, etc).

Gotta watch them though. Always.

Bingo... I haven't seen anything that raises any real threat alarms.

More freezes? We already have the longest freezes of the legacy carriers. I've doubted that one from the get go. If anyone tells you we have the highest training costs in the industry, that is BS. UA (even with their pay banding....I'm looking at you, Jerry) is the runaway winner with that and their very lenient freezes for moving up.

Sick leave change? yeah... the company is going to want something in that arena, though.

Thanks Gloopy, beat me to it.

Everyone please, just stop the crazy. There is nothing "on the table" and there won't be an exchange of openers until April.

"I heard", "I talked to....", yadda, yadda, yadda. Stop.

When in doubt, contact a Rep from your base.

Min skd
 

Alot of pilots over 60 year hang on because of the min skd option. How does this help the wave of retirements about to occur? This is a major QOL issue.

You are an ALPA insider. You obviously know that plenty of posturing and behind-the-scenes stage-setting is occurring between ALPA and the company right now outside the Section 6 timeline (and very probably without consulting LEC reps). For you to claim otherwise is just silly

I have no doubt the above rumors are orchestrated trial balloons floated by ALPA and/or the company to gauge our sentiment.

As gloopy and 80 stated, there could also be an element of "saturation bombing" to get us to accept one of those stinkers and feel lucky we avoided the rest.

No concessions, period. Why won't ALPA state some basic goals?

My crazy on the table item is a paraphrase from SD. As far as I know, that's like talking to a rep from my base.:rolleyes:

As I have posted in the past probably the two worst sources for contract information are crew schedulers and this forum. Most schedulers only know what their computer tells them. Anytime you think something is not right you need to ask for a supervisor. Generally they have a much stronger contract knowledge.

8 PDs/year from our sick bank, and no change to our current sick policy. That leaves them two 4 day trips per year that the attendance police won't have to scrutinize. Problem solved as sick leave use is cut in half!

I have talked with quite a few people involved as reps or volunteers. Not a single one is aware of any posturing or trial balloons being put out by the company concerning the contract. No back channel talks and in fact no talks at all. 100% of rumor mongering seems to come from this forum.

The reps are the last to know. The admin insiders make all the deals.

Sailing how about that ridiculous CDO rumor on the FAR 117 LOA?

That was just plain silly. I mean if DALPA were to consider such a huge reduction in safety we all know they would have polled us.

I promise you we will cave on minimum schedule. It was not on the survey and the pilots don't have a clue.

I'm 90% sure we will see some reduction to sick time.

Pay banding is a done deal.

The goal for the insiders is to keep the line pilots in the dark and do a jam down sell job just like C2012.

Playing with fire this time.

Fool me once.........

Jerry