First, I've heard of that. My apologies for citing erroneous information.

If there any place a member in good standing could go to learn whether the line is in the right place, or moving to 100 seats?

I know it sucks when someone agrees with one statement. It was only one statement Bar. Not a blanket statement either. My point is in reference to a single pilot group and a single point in time; PWA 2012 at DAL. No more no less.
I agree and want that too. I also know that you know that given our National structure, a statement like that from the ALPA National President would more than likely cause a few lawsuits because under its current representational structure would mean they are favoring one group or type of airline over another. A Master Chairman could for DAL, CAL, UAUA etc could say that and it would make sense and be in line with the structure.
Bar,
Be tough, people are learning and that is good.
I disagree with the first part of the quote. Under a DB plan where we paid homage to the almighty FAE, yep we sold out our young. With the equity payout not so much. With the way the ratios from Capt, to FO pay have changed not so much.
Within the context of Scope. Yep, I am fearful too. I want to continue to draw my paychecks from DAL. I would love to do it in a 76 seat jet. In reality I do not care what I fly as long as I am active on the DAL seniority list. I want to get to where you want to be. I just want it done without sealing from Peter to pay Paul. That is not to say that it will come without a cost. The point is that given the state of the PWA, most pilots want scope back and pay, and work rules, and retirement. When I have asked everyone to rank them, even the junior guys, it is:

Scope but not at the price of a my rightful restoration. I want my pay and scope too.

When I ask them what amount of pay they are willing to forgo for that scope, the response is I am happy to keep scope where it is if I can get my raise, and recapture next time around.

I want to see the 70+ seat flying here. I want to find a way to make the company want to allow it to happen without costing us the rest of the farm to get it. Does that mean taking it at book to a certain number of airframes before they would have to pay a higher hourly rate? Maybe. (think internal scope with a financial backstop to not allow the company to replace all of the large flying with smaller lower paying jets on main line. For example 100 76 seat jets at EV's book but getting the 101st jet would require the hourly rate to bump by 20% across the board) Does it mean lobbying DC for work rest rules and third party contract liability, maybe.
The point is that I do not want to buy that flying back with my rightful raise and improvement in work rules. (Actually what I personally would be willing to do would never make it to this board as it makes sense and there is no reason to post it) I want what you want, I want to deal with the divestiture of our flying that you see, but I want it to be done for added benefit of the group, not a zero sum. Remember that we need to deal with our house before we clean up another house.

Bar;
I understand what Dave Behnke stated. It is the "Constitution" of Trade Unionism.

To do as you say we need to fight from our current position and not one that hurts us.

I would think that protecting flying after these Air Service contracts expire is where we need to be looking. As the ROAR article states, these contracts will be in place for some time. Well, lets recognize that and adjust our thinking to the end of those contracts.
Taking this approach does many things. I do not need to point them out. They are in the end good for the pilots; ALL PILOTS, as the flying returns to mainline, and good for the company because there is no big bang. We can deal with the money side down the road.
Why does this make sense?
Because it gives the corporation time to deal with the added debt burden of the airframes, the different cost structures that will be merged, certificate issues of added airframes, work group concerns, etc. It allows a logical process in which to insource the product and do what they truly desire to do. It allows them to have one level of service for all customers. It allows them the time.

Trying to make this happen all at once leads to a "Big Bang" and because of that, there is a ton of resistance for those within the Association, and those within the company. There are costs by doing it this way on both sides of the equation. It sets up all of us to make hasty decisions and more than likely costly ones that could cause more harm that good.

Bar, I am all for UNITY. It solves a lot of issues, but to get unity we need to solve a lot of organizational issues within our association and within our company structure to make that happen. That all takes time.

Once again, for clarification, this started because I agreed with one comment in reference to one point in time. If you can see that, then you will understand why I am in agreement with one statement. The rest of it needs another thread, maybe another subtopic.

FYI, one of the reasons I came so aggressively after you last year was because this was never stated. Anytime someone would ask anything about it, you would simply state "RJ's are being parked."


FWIW, you, ACL, and Bar have some great points.


We HAVE to learn from the mistakes in our past and aggressively protect the bottom end scope and the top end scope. The candle is trying to be lit at both ends.

Coming from the statements of our mgmt honchos, they don't seem to have much intention of coming out about a 100 seater. I really think they are waiting for us to sell it out. Never...ever.....ever.

Well said.

off the subject, sorry, but did anyone get paid today by direct deposit?

http://www.ibeatyou.com/blog/wp-cont...c101019223.jpg


SCOOOOOOOPPPPPPPEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!



ftb- you coming to the show tomorrow night? I'll write up a permission slip for you to give to youre wife if need be.

I think, if what we've read today is right, what we need is some new ideas on how to strengthen scope. Something different. Not just artificial caps and limits that one day they'll try and roll back. Something more... something new.

Something that the union could box up and push towards management and that management (and those who hold the purse strings) would look at and gladly take in because it fits their needs in terms of revenue generation and cost.


http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictur...lyGrail067.jpg

Just don't know what that is.
---


Sorry buddy, I'm going to the mountains, first time since last summer which is odd since we used to do it every other week a few years ago.

My wife does take permission slips if they're green. She's no dummy, I guess thats why here two diplomas are bigger than mine and they only cost her a total of $6000. :D

Wear ear plugs or we'll be forced to forever communicate over the internet. BTW, dropping a book in your vfile next time I go in.

Yes I did. I assume it's because the last day of the month falls on Sunday. The earlier the check, the better. :p

Now if we could just jump to the 15th check. That's the paycheck I really want.:o

maybe i'm not catching the point in this. Are we looking at numbers so as to determine mgmts problems? What should it matter to us that it costs X amount to fly OUR REPLACEMENT jets vs letting OUR jobs be replaced because its cheaper for the company? Its probably cheaper for the Regionals to fly ALL of our planes right? Why are we concerned with the companies cost of doing business on the narrowbody replacement aircraft only? IF the company wants those aircraft in service then it shouldnt matter to us as a union what the cost of doing business is, it should be our concern though that its our pilots behind the controls! I thought the union was there to protect the jobs not to solve mgmts problems? Again, forgive me if i'm missing something here.

MOST EXCELLENT!! Keep the warriors fired up!!! ;)