It's been almost 2 months since the DOT issued their ruling on the slot/swap,should we not see a final order soon?

 

Darn, I got that all backwards from what I wanted to say. I guess I should not be talking to a banker while trying to post on APC. What I should have said was, this is for a pay rate alone, not for the total value increase or restoration of the PWA.

Ya know that question is leading Makes you want to put a positive number there!

 

Sorry, yes, you did not say you despise them. It is just the attitude that some have and I shouldn't have generalized or put words in your mouth.

I wish I was senior enough to be home on holidays and weekends. I can do the weekends off but that is on reserve and, well, reserve sucks. I just think that it is an easy thing for guys to through out there when they complain about ALPA. "I wish I didn't have to work weekends or holidays" "Those guys don't ever work on weekends or holidays and that along with the FPL is the only reason they do it, oh, they also get paid 100 hrs a month" Those are all comments that I hear and I think that is a poor generalization and even if that was the case, I don't ever remember hearing that we have too many pilots volunteering to work for the union.

Now, I totally agree with you that someone needs to be available from the union on a 24 hr 7 day a week basis. And not just the reps, but someone from the core committees that impact daily life on the line (contract admin, scheduling, etc). And, since they are getting paid for being on call (through FPL) there really needs to be a metric for tracking response time. I know that I have left messages before (when at fNWA) and never received a call back or maybe many days later, after the scheduling violation occurred. Maybe we need a DALPA OCC pilot, someone who can be the receiver of the calls and manage a proper communication between pilots in need and some from the union.

 

30 day comment period, and now about a 30 day wait until the final ruling. I suspect we should hear something in early-mid Oct.

 

Good post. I would agree with what you said. And also say we should present "reasonable" proposals. Wait, what?

I just don't think we should go in with self defeating emo rhetoric like "by God you used to be able to buy a new Caddilac with a month's salary then so that is our goal" (BTW that would put most CA's around the 550K mark...well deserved but a 100% chance we would get parked forever and that's pretty obvious).

I agree with you completely about not aiming too low though. You can be both reasonable and present a very high water mark opener though. They don't have to be mutually exclusive. I think its "reasonable" to argue for SWA pay (rates and W-2) and SWA days off, both relative to small narrowbody flying and adjusted up from there. SWA is a successful, profitable, operationaly sound LCC. I would then argue for "reasonable" premiums over and above SWA:

Our per pilot revenue is significantly higher and we deserve some of that. Our intl pilots are cheaper than AF/KLM, so there is plenty of room to adjust upwards from there. JB flies a 100 seater (all coach, so really a 90-somethign seater) with their rates and again, our per pilot revenue is much higher. We have revenue premiums from a global network, first class, legacy brand and network flexibility other airlines can only dream of.

So start with SWA pay for 737-700's and JB pay for 90-something seaters and adjust to account for the reasonable premiums above those super ultra LCC's and see what you come up with. My back of the napkin math comes up with 50-60%+ on date of signing alone. Scope? Well all we want is SWA scope of 100%, you know, that darling ultra super LCC that can do no wrong? The same for work rules, etc.

If we just strut in and slam pay rates on the mediator's table with 60% raises because we're awesome and we deserve them, rest assured we will be laughed out of the room. But if we merely ask for LCC parity with reasonable premiums we will get to the same high water mark opener and just maybe get to the next step as well without getting parked.

 

Not to mention (although I guess that means I'm mentioning it?) when fuel ran up over the last year above the already high costs that were anticipated, they went out and found...found...3 billion to cover it.

We could get full restoration many times over with the numerous multi billion dollar mistakes recent management teams have made. Many of those billion dollar blunders can be directly attributed to outsourcing so not only can we include massive scope recapture, but it can be shown quite convincingly that the company can't afford it long term if we don't.

 

Gloopy,

You and Joe might be talking past each other.

This deals with the legal theory that "you can not bind holding companies to a scope agreement" in legalese, "a non signatory third party can not be bound to a contract."

This theory was brought forward as a justification for ALPA's denial of ASA and Comair's attempts to secure their own scope over DCI flying (after the Delta pilots outsourced it). The results of this legal theory can be seen in many places:

• Republic Airlines Holdings operation of what we considered to be "mainline" competitors while flying under our scope
• The inception of GoJets as a separate certificate to make an end run around American's scope agreement.
• Advice to the TWA pilots that their scope would not be binding on American, thus they had no reason to protect section 1.

Of course what preceded all of this is the decision to keep ASA and Comair off the Delta list. Once that decision was made, many more decisions had to be made to manage three carriers operating as alter egos within one Corporate holding company.

Unfortunately the legal justifications to make the political situation work had many consequences which harmed a great many pilots aside from those at Delta who were furloughed and the Comair pilots who saw "their" flying disbursed. The results harmed Trans States, TWA, NWA, United, American and ASA pilots to one degree or another. The only beneficiary was the non union carriers who experienced explosive growth as a result of scope being seriously undermined.

As for the original legal concept ... just pick up a copy of any insurance policy. The legal concept has been operative since the Second Century. There are numerous non signatory third party beneficiaries, obligors and obligees.

Further, with a Pilot Board Member, tell me we could not write restrictions into Republic's contract on a First Party basis. We obviously could if we wanted to.

As for the history, Joe is correct and sadly, it is what is going to kill our Association if we can't get it turned around. ALPA has been in a steady decline, in qualitative, quantitative, and economic terms for the last ten years.

 

Joe, would you agree the "Delta Pilot's Association" was founded in October 2000?

IMHO - what happens with the DPA vote will be a distinction with no great difference.

 

That's the way I read it, and answered it, also.

 

I don't even have to post anymore because Gloopy reads my mind and posts it while I am typing.

Gloopy for president.