[quote=TOGA LK;878616]Sailing, as usual you have valid points. *However, a newhire wasn't here during the merger when the stocks were issued. *The stocks were not issued to compensate for inequities in the existing DC rate between North and South or the 180 fNWA pilots would've received another $15-20k to compensate (that doesn't even take into account the gains on that difference over twenty or thirty years). *This would be similar to me stating that I didn't get circa 2000 pay from Delta while I worked elsewhere. *What is relevant is the fact that you have pilots hired on the same same day, flying the same equipment under the same retirement (415k and 401k) but at different DC rates. What is bothersome to me is the fact that under ALPA we signed (I didn't) a contract creating a c-scale.*

We did exactly the same thing at DAL. The company offered a fixed 9 percent DC plan to all pilots when the retirement plan was frozen. DALPA elected to target that money instead with senior pilots getting little or nothing on the rational that they had a large frozen plan. We were told at the time if the retirement were terminated that the new DC would be retargeted to make the senior guys whole. Never happened. I did not like it but got over it. I went several years with no DC funding.

I admit that it was the fNWA MEC that allowed newhires to fall into a c-scale, but how will we prevent such maneuvering from ALPA and management going forward with contract 2012? *Management has proven time and time again that it can move metal with other pilots (scope, joint ventures and codeshares) and now they've sustained their theories they can cut costs further by economically dividing the existing pilot group.

The DC plan becomes equal at the amendable date. We don't have to negotiated to fix it.


Sorry Sailing, I agree with most of your statements but Delta South pilots shrugging this off like it's not and hasn't happened will keep this two separate airlines for quite some time.*

As I mentioned I don't think its right but its a large amount of money. Do you really think the company is just going to give us that money out of the goodness of their heart? We have a contract. They are not going to toss tens of millions of dollars our way because we say please! They certainly did not offer up money to fix the same issue with the senior pilots at Delta from the targeted plan. It was the contract. I voted no but the majority voted yes so I accept that. I voted no on the joint contract mostly because it extended the Delta amendable date out 3 years. I could have passed a resolution to have Dalpa demand the company reopen the contract effective last spring. Think the company would go for it? Again the joint contract was ratified by both sides. The company is not going to throw money at us with a new contract around the corner.

Now and then we can get a couple of minor contract improvements when the company finds the current contract conflicts with what they want. Its all been basically low dollar stuff. We have gotten about the same dollar value back in small changes. There has been nothing giving us the leverage to fix this higher dollar item. Sadly we have a contract that will not be amendable until 31 DEC 2012. We all have to live with this contract until then.

There may be one window of opportunity to fix the issue. It would be if the new rest rules go into effect before our contract amendable date. Now we are talking a high dollar item the company is going to need help on. I would like to see DALPA request a section six opening to address the new rest rules. I would fully support a equal DC for all pilots if we get a early opening. Failing the company agreeing to that then I would support a attempt to have a equal DC as part of the quid for bringing the contract into alignment with the new rest rules. I suspect however the rest rules might not go into effect for years in which case the DC will already be at parity.

Having flown both our largest narrowbody vs the 737. The 757 is by far super premium. The trips are nice, and the plane really does perform well... but from a pilot standpoint the thing blows. Makes me laugh that much more at the WN guys that paid for a type rating in this thing- not to mention having to spend a career in it.

Note to others the bias that I have flown the 757 before, haha.

Second.

And Third.

And Fourth....

I'll admit I took that a bit far, however, I'd take RA over him.

IMHO, he took a lousy company with a bull in a china shop personality and set the stage for it to do well and then benefited greatly from a good economy. It shows you the importance of having a mission and a direction especially in an industry that is as listless as this one and devoid of leadership.

But I respond poorly to his style and his "I knew I was rich when I could keep my house at 65 degrees year round in Houston." After a while one goes from being brash to being ineffective. I might be in the minority though. Not saying he did wrong. I never met him and if I did I probably would like him but for some reason I just think he's more a cleanup guy than a man for all seasons.

-----
Very interesting exchange with GB over the airline industry and the Colgan crash with PBS, for most of you, you'll really like GB even more:

FRONTLINE: flying cheap: interviews: gordon bethune | PBS


Really? You think $16,000 a year as a starting salary for a first officer is enough?


Can I tell you how they get to that, just so that the public knows? Every three or four years, there's contract negotiations between labor groups and the company. The company says: "We can afford to pay this much money. This is total dollars. How would you like to allocate it?" The union who's negotiating on behalf of its members allocates that money in a way that can get ratified by the vote of the pilots. You know who's not there? The people you haven't hired yet. You know who always gets left, because the captain wants $2 more? And everybody says, "Well, you know, my first year we didn't get paid anything either, so tough **** for them." ... The reason it's $16,000 a year is because that union wanted that money somewhere else, and that's the way it works.


It's the union's fault.


Well, you only get so much money. How much would you like to allocate? Would you like to have every pilot get $2 less than ours so we could pay the first-year people this much, or would you rather have the $2 an hour in your paycheck and let the first-year people go probationary as they are, like every other, and you were? And that's what they elect to do. ...

You must not know many people who actually work there :rolleyes:

For the record - I spent 16 years working for Horizon and know many AS employees (my wife worked there for 9 years as an ops agent before getting furloughed) - there are lots of great people there, but that's in spite of (not, because of) how they are treated.

A good example: a few years ago, AS was in tough contract negotiations with their rampers in SEA (by far their biggest hub). One morning, they showed up for work only to find that their badges no longer worked to access the SIDA. It turns out that overnight the company had fired all of the rampers and contracted their services out to Menzies.

Having said all that, I really did enjoy my time in the Alaska Air Group - but when it comes to how they treat their people, all is not as it seems.

Sasha Grey

ding ding ding:eek:

did the "lightweight" comment give it away:D

I've heard similar. At least a few of the CPZ guys were FO's at horizon with an updgrade projection that got farther and farther as well.

That company can be very hard core when it comes to its employee groups.

A lot of our LAX flying has been taken over by Alaska right? Is this to reduce the amount of overlap so in a merger we can say it'll have no effect on the market because we did not overlap anyways?

No, I am smarter than the average ALPA MEC chairman and I peeked at the url...