Originally Posted by Splash

1. They're not alone.
2. "Probably"?
3. Understatement of the year, but it's only January.
4. Ahh...the age-old Quality vs Quantity issue.
5. Maybe you should underline more, or use larger font.
6. I'm liking our reps more and more...
7. Your posted REFUSED to mention pay restoration! You are trying to manage our expectations!

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

We also need a block hr min, and a min percentage of Skyteam flying that all the skyteam carriers and Skyteam management sign on to.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

Carl;

I want what you want. A agreement in the PWA that states that there will be no new, renewed, extended or modified ASA, Code Shares, or JV's signed without our approval. Period.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

We also need a block hr min, and a min percentage of Skyteam flying that all the skyteam carriers and Skyteam management sign on to.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

I have no idea what the MEC or MEC Council (reps) will do. We need a survey to find our majority position first.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

Yes, and my reps are sick of hearing from me too, but that is part of the job.

Yes, we will see what Tim does. It is after all his second day on the job.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

Iah;
A few points.

1) The 76 seat settlement was a grievance settlement and did not require the MEC Councils vote. I think from discussions with many reps, that the process was not the one that should have been taken.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

Fact is that no matter what he would have written or omitted, someone would have gotten upset.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

In the end, I am not going to lose sleep over this first letter. I know my reps position and the fact is that as long as they are there, SJS sales are off the table. We will fly them here. Period.

Originally Posted by jetnwa

Johnson,

Whether the CSeries is in production or not yet doesn't change the fact it is on the horizon or some other variation will be. Anyone should go to the Bombardier website and try telling me it is just a "placeholder". It is a replacement aircraft and potential gamechanger. Just because you don't like the message, it doesn't change the fact the 100 seat pressure is there to be outsourced.

IMHO, I highly doubt we will have a 12,000 pilot list 10 years from now. I didn't say guys will get furloughed but I believe attrition will make it a smaller airline while code shares, JVs and potentially bigger RJs will take more and more of the mainline pie. Please show me where the growth aircraft are? The company has made it very clear they don't want encumber the balance sheet with new aircraft orders. Even the used aircraft we are getting will most likely replace other, older mainline ships.

As for "Complaining" about a threat to my career again, well Johnson, I don't know when you were hired. A lot of us pre 2001 NWA/DAL hires have been "around the block" with this issue and it wasn't fun. Taking a very vocal, hard line attitude on Scope is an important issue for us. The "silence" from the MEC on this matter has been deafening. Maybe they have it suitcased and are just being quiet about it?

As I said before, there is a difference between being "furloughed" and having your job "outsourced". Seeing mainline aircraft parked while on the street, then watching huge growth in larger RJs on those former routes, tends to stick in your craw and make one a little more militant.

I know two of my DTW reps very well and talk to them often. With that being said, it still doesn't change the threat or economic pressures that the company may want to use for a deal. Whether you like it or not, I have no doubt with enough money on the table, you will find 51% of any pilot group who will vote "Yes".

Originally Posted by shiznit

Bombastic much?

Happy new year!

Originally Posted by iaflyer

Ok, great, they can say this and say that, but why does O'Malley's letter say nothing about scope? I mean, there's isn't a sentence about it. I know you said you're about the action, not the words, but the problem is that in the past, LOA's have come out of the MEC that NO ONE had any input on, and they were presented as a Fait Accompli.

Originally Posted by jetnwa

As for "Complaining" about a threat to my career again, well Johnson, I don't know when you were hired. A lot of us pre 2001 NWA/DAL hires have been "around the block" with this issue and it wasn't fun. Taking a very vocal, hard line attitude on Scope is an important issue for us. The "silence" from the MEC on this matter has been deafening. Maybe they have it suitcased and are just being quiet about it?

Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy

Carl, I have no doubt the reps will follow the will of the represented; but that will may or may not reflect the will of the APC forum, or the 747 crowd. Something to consider. Just because you don't get your way, doesn't mean the reps aren't following the will of those they represent.