First, I don't know if it is legally possible to hold both positions, probably not, but it would be impossible to do. Each job is a seven day a week job. There would no chance that Lee would run for both, his head would explode just thinking about it.

Second, I don't know about the MEC or who any candidate is, I have my guesses but many times they are wrong. I thought I was sufficiently vague about when the fracture would occur. Certainly you see in some messages coming out of some LEC's the seeds of that fracture, a lot of "us vs. them" language. You throw in some of the bomb throwers who bring up the "woe is me" stuff like operation Visine (that doesn't exist) and these old grievances and you have a volatile situation. Most other MEC Chairman I have seen could not have held this together for that long. Lee has been subject to constant abuse and attacks and he has an unnatural ability to shrug it off and move on.

My best hope is that the average line pilot on either side does not want this, or at least from what I have seen. It is impossible to tell one group from the next, aside from the stupid hat thing. The toughest thing for an LEC rep to do is to file away the constant string of messages from the loudest 2% of their pilots and get down to average Joe and find out what he/she is thinking. They rarely send emails to their reps and certainly not five times a day. If the reps can listen to those pilots and place the opinions of the 2% on equal footing with every other pilot, then I don't think it is imminent.

As for the Chairman, every rep needs to put away politics and simply choose the best person for the job. Who has the most experience? Who has the broadest depth of experience? Who can lead the group as a whole and not attempt to cobble together a "coalition" and pile driver over other councils? Pick that person and you are in much better shape. I hope we can avoid the quota system where pilots are picked based on their pre-merger groups, that time is long past. Get the best guys for the job, whatever their "heritage" is. Contract 2012 is coming and I need more money and more time off.

 

No. And yet, yes.

SKYW's Pearl Harbor on the industry when they chose to willingly "deal management an ace" in an act of agressive predatory bargaining was one such example. Although it was technically done outside Section 6, the cause and effect, the before and the after, remain the same.

Then came the Republix Air Group, and that was Section 6. Throw the FO's under the bus, deal the same "ace" SkyWest did only on steroids (all the way up to 100 seaters they didn't even have for many years, all for cut rate rates) in a specific bid to win current and future RFP's. And they were quite successful, to the detriment of other ALPA regionals both in and out of Sec. 6. Although in Section 6, they were IBT and not ALPA, but to emphasise that point is splitting hairs and missing the broader point.

Other regionals, in Section 6 and in ALPA, have crafted and in many cases ratified CBA/PWA's within the lowest bidder RFP paradigm and along the lines of predatory bargaining (from the perspective of others...although each group probably considers each act more "preservational bargaining"...alas there is a chicken and egg paradigm in all this). In many cases, concessionary ALPA Sec. 6 CBA's were ratified even in the face of profitable companies and in many cases while embedded within a broad and growing regional sector.

The only reason that is possible in the first place, of course, are the (mostly) ALPA Sec. 6 shortcomings of the mainline CBA/PWA's, which not only "allowed" such race to the bottom bidding but set the stage to guarantee it would have to happen.

There is plenty of blame to go around, at the mainline and at the regional levels. Yet it will be up to the mainline MEC's and no one else to identify the core issues and then fix them, as well as deal with the heavy lifting in doing so (i.e. it will not be free).

Not that long ago at all, the vast majority of regionals were either all props, or prop operators with a few jets. Almost all of those jets were 50 seaters. and yet now half of mainline block hours (read: pilot jobs) are outsourced to regionals for perpetually depressed wages and working conditions and most regionals are mostly or all jets, with 70-76 seaters (and up?) rapidly becoming the new norm.

If the next generation of 100-120 seaters (etc) wind up being outsourced at the regionals, will it be "because" the regionals obtain that flying through Section 6? No. The mainline pilot groups will have to allow it first. Yet, yes. Because the regional pilot groups will have to agree to fly it not only cheaper than the mainline, but cheaper than other regionals. It won't matter if a given regional is ALPA, IBT, in-house or non-union, and it really won't even matter if they are in Section 6.

Not claiming I have all the answers or even trying to nit pick at your point. I know you were just pointing out a technicality, and I agree you are technically right. But, as you know, even looking at that technicality mandates a broader evaluation of how it even entered the discussion in the first place.

 

[quote=tsquare;871463]YouTube - Robot Chicken: Morton Hears A What, What! - Adult Swim (Official)

 

Guess who has though of some of these ideas? Guess who wants a min DCI contract? Yep you guessed it. These are not new ideas!

Also I do think that a ALPA President that had his head screwed on straight may not sign a PWA that is bad for the group. Question is what is bad for the group? SJS take backs that reduce regionals, or SJS that sells more seats to the regionals? I know the answer I deem to be correct, and for that reason, there are many things that needed to be reworked in the ALPA Constitution and By Laws.


No it is not a good thing. Places like RJET can sign life agreements with Star, One World, and Skyteam that could very well circumnavigate every mainlines Section One scope previsions. That would be the end game. A carve out of 150 seats and below that these Mega Regionals would slowly take from the Flagship carriers of these alliances.

The reason they will not is easy, AF, KLM, and DAL pilots groups and their CBA's/PWA's though ALPA and IFALPA. With the cooperative agreements between these three companies and then with all the other airlines and their pilot groups among Sky there has been agreements penned that will prevent this sort of thing.


Yes, we agree that once Foreign Ownership and Cabotage are done away with it will be very easy to make these alliances the airlines and everyone becomes a contract carrier. Even a bigger reason for a unified group and voice that controls the Lion's share of the flying sitting at the table.

 

I WOULD SAY THAT IS WHAT I MISS THE MOST, BEING ABLE TO SEE WHO IS BIDDING WHAT AND WHERE YOU WOULD SIT ON THE LIST of pilots bidding a particular position as well as the choice ranking. Put in the choices and sit back and watch each month. Was nice and simple. Here I have no idea what is going on!

 

Well said in turn.

Our next contract will be the true barometer against which to judge the policies of Moak's group. I agree with Alfaromeo that there is a chance we will get something we don't like after Moak. The field will be wide-open for snake-oil salesmen, people who want to export the old "book" disputes from the fNWA, the malcontents from the South side that want poer back just because it is power, etc.

There will be plenty of suckers to line up and buy themselves a little bit of that snake-oil. People will eageraly "buy" lots and lots of cheap promises as a hedge against a bad contract. Prices will go up, yield will go down. The con game will be revealed, and the market for Delta pilots will collapse.

AMR, in reverse.

Maybe.

Maybe not.

 

I should have been more specific, in a way, there is something good to come of that and that is that management teams will need to realize that they can no longer ignore the fact that their outsource "partners" are now taking contracts of their own because, ironically, they're cheaper.

At some point, whatever savings you might obtain by outsourcing to a regional is completely washed away not only for us and management but for those who own stock- the ones who count the most. And to me, the only proper defense to that is to go back on offense and put worthy small jets and big props back on property and remain in house.

However, there is a lot more bad than good and you spelled it out already.

 

You actually help argue my point. My main point is that ALPA represented groups are kept in check by the larger National association of pilot groups that are ALPA.

I know what you are getting at with the references above, by the point that you agree with is, that to date, no ALPA regional has gone in forced a holding company then the parent company it turn to the fire to demand and receive larger jets without a prior concession of this flying from a mainline pilot group.

The only place where a judge has ordered more RJ flying to a regional is AMR and AMR Eagle which are two separate Associations. One under ALPA and one not. In fact, I am not even sure you would have see this or the flow fight or RJ case if AMR was ALPA. ALPA National probably would have never allowed a regional unit to go after these sort of issues if both groups were ALPA.

It further illustrates my statement that it is important to keep and not fracture the Regional and Mainline flying represented by the a larger association at the national level.

The problem with IBT or a third Union representing regional interests is that it allows an all out war with the mainline bargaining unit. My point is that splitting off Regionals from Mainline at National may have effects that many did not even envision. The regional would be free to flight with all their might for any and all flying, going after the mainline bargaining unit as well as the mainline carriers.

As you say mainline pilot groups will always have to allow the flying before a regional airline can be awarded it. Being awarded this flying is a lot different than having it protected or won in a section six cycle. It would require a regional pilot group to actually reach though a holding company to the parent company and then it to the mainline carriers structure to force the issue. That cannot happen due to the exclusivity that all mainline carriers pilot groups' enjoy with their carriers. Start dorking with associations that represent a given group and you could quite easily see this dynamic and relationship change. Exclusivity may be lost. That is a true Danger.

 

We will see what the new rest rules do in regard to the break even and benefits of outsourced flying. I am sure the push will be for more seats and larger airframes. Part of me expects that given the resolve of many of our association's leaders the wave may in fact break.

 

I'm going to be flying tonight for the first time since the book came out. Check your NOTAM's boyz! Coming to an airspace near you!