Ahhhh you were VQ3? You had to have been there at least in the 80s, because they all transitioned to the E6... Do you remember a FE that had the nickname "Liquid Larry"? I was VRC-50 86-89 then VQ4 until I got out.

Ah, yes... Liquid Larry. DFW Refugee and I deployed with him a couple of times. Now there's a guy that had some big layovers. Good F/E, though.

I was in VQ3 from 82-85; DFW was there from 83-86. A fun squadron, but three years of it (and Hawaii) was plenty for me.

Yes, there are those people, but even the ones that have been there 15+ years would love to have mainline grow a pair and take their flying back. The only reason any of those guys want the flying is because of the stagnation that they would be subject to on the bottom of a mainline list. If there was growth by whatever means, they would not care about you taking back your coded flying.

It is all about the context of how the question is asked.

He is dead accurate. It is meet and confer. They have no say in whatever we want to do. This is the language that was agreed to in the settlement. I will let Bar answer why Ford-Cooksey decided to agree on weak worded language, but the reality is that it has no strength and cannot force this pilot group, or any pilot group to bend to the RJ side of the Ford-Cooksey working in the Policy Manual.

It was a settlement over a lawsuit against ALPA. They agreed to the weak worded language that would never hold any mainline mec's feet to the legal fire, so of course ALPA agreed to put it in there. It is fluff at best.

The only power that ALPA National has over any pilot group is the President's refusal to sign a CBA. As shiz stated, that will never happen for a major airline. If LM even thought about doing that at one of the majors within ALPA, even I would be ready to dump em, and he knows that. He is politically savvy, as is anyone who has made it to that position. No President would want to be over ALPA when they lost a 12K pilot group.

It is a straw man. The power is at the MEC level. Just look at some of the stupid stuff that ALPA carriers have done. None of it has been at the direction of National, and generally the advice was the opposite.

If we went to the same duty time rules as a truck driver your going to have to work the same number of days as a truckdriver to get your hours in. Do you really want to work 20 to 24 days a month? Have you ever driven a truck? Nod of for even a few seconds and you can be toast. Bit different in a aircraft where you have a copilot and there are not idiots driving all around you a few feet away.
Totally different jobs and situations without any valid comparison between the two.

This is a good example of how the company puts a spin on the AE process to disguise the loss of captain seats in the system. Taking such a statement at face value ignores reality. 22 D3. projected staffing shows the trend is a loss of 76 Captain seats over the next year. So you were right-partly, it's not a NET ZERO. IT'S A NET LOSS OF 76 Captain seats.:mad:

From the last 3 AE's:

Projected Capt. Positions Systemwide

Aug 2011-- 4928

Jan 2012-- 4912

Nov 2012-- 4852

Yes, we are shrinking. Welcome to a merger to to Majors. It probably would have been end to end as they touted, but the economy went in the crapper, and fuel never went down.

Until this country creates more jobs, this is what I expect we are going to see. Sucks, but that is the reality.

It will suck more, if pilots choose some flashy pay raise over strong section one changes. If we do, do that, we have no one to blame but ourselves when the JV's, CPA's and code shares keep a coming.

All true ACL. But don't try to sell me that we are adding Captain positions when the reverse is true. The memos from crew resources are misleading in that respect, and some on here can't see the forest for the trees.

ACL - A Boeing jet in house colors is now your Avatar, ... excellent.

Shiznit - you're right on the money!

Oh so true. It is the 787-900, fwiw.