Here's what I was given by a LCA

From nicest (and most expensive).

Rockville Centre Inn

516-593-1600

Five Towns Motor Inn

516-371-2600

Pan Am Hotel

800-937-7374

I stayed at the last mentioned at the end of Febuary. It's ooollllllddddd, but it was clean. They'll pick you up at either LGA or JFK for free, and it's $5 for the ride back to either airport. Total bill was $99.

Hotel near La Guardia Airport and JFK Airport - Pan American Hotel - Official Site

 

They can ONLY put you over the ALV if you submit a YS or GS. Call and see if they'll release you for the rest of the month. If a scheduler doesn't, I'd politely ask for a supervisor and ask them. Explain your displacement situation. This may help grease the wheels a little bit. If you're at 73 hours or higher, they have to release you.

 

It is, but they don't think it is.

 

I was talking about the confluence of factors forcing (i.e. exerting pressure towards) an agreement, not a "forced" agreement in the sense that it is mandatory.

I just don't know how the regional model survives without scope givebacks, I don't see us willing to do this; I see Delta needing to get out of as many 50-seat agreements as quickly as possible; I see the fact that all airlines have "thousands" of qualified applicants on file, but they're the same applicants for all airlines, and I see the requirements for F/O's going up, shutting out the regionals even further; I don't see us willing to sign on for any unplanned arbitration, but I don't see why we wouldn't agree to putting the RJ pilots on the list with a pre-agreed SLI; I see manuacturers itching to make a sale...

...so I suspect there is opportunity there.

I don't really know how the regionals structure this without their stock price affected by the perspective of not growing, but then again, I think most regionals are getting close to an even less pleasant outcome for stockholders.

So I think there is a confluence of factors conspiring to wrap up the small-gauge end of the scope problem.

All pure speculation, of course.

 

IMO it is shortsighted and naive to think that 850+ 50 seat RJs currently flying today will dissapear because of a confluence of factors that you and many others believe is coming down the road. Remember '00? If you asked someone in '99 or 2000 what their thoughts on the industry were, would anyone have thought it would end up the way it has? Things change.

You don't solve scope by ignoring it while you blindly assume that the current trends are going continue and solve it for us in 5-10 years time. IMO a beneficial solution on scope is FAR more likely if it is proactively achieved versus passively awaited.

 

Exactly! These guys who think they have a crystal ball and can "connect the dots" crack me up. We need to get a handle on this scope thing so that, no matter what happens in the future, we stop and reverse the outsourcing.

Kinda reminds me of how many of us were spooked into voting for extending our bankruptcy/emergency buying power for an extra 2 years because supposedly 2010 would be a total meltdown in the airline industry and would be a terrible time to negotiate a new contract. We had to do anything we could to facilitate the merger so we could be "too big to fail and get a seat at the bailout table." How did that turn out? Record profits in 2010 and now our careers are stagnating or even worse going backwards. At least we have our bankruptcy pay...

When anyone tries to convince me to make a decision one way or the other, because they say they know what's going to happen in the future.... that's when their credibility becomes near zero in my book.

 

Let me make sure I understand you two: a person trying to understand the implications of current trends in the industry is naive and cracks you up? Trying to determine the extent of our leverage is, somehow, ignoring the problem? Thinking about something, and all the angles, is not proactive? Laying out a theory is predicting the future?

Must be nice to go through life unaffected by trivial pursuits such as reason and observation. To know everything already, that must be great indeed! But if you're offended by the speculation of others, let me suggest that, maybe, APC isn't the right venue for your (greater) talents. And if you are so offended by the mere expressions of other opinions, why not lurk?

 

My point was that none of us know everything. All the reason and observation in the world mean squat in the face of major geopolitical events. Nobody can come on here and say they saw 2001 coming. Nobody should be on here saying the scope problem will fix itself. To say that would be naive and ignoring the problem.

 

Your point is valid, but doesn't adress my original post. I didn't say it would fix itself. I said that I think there is a legitimate shot at fixing it, because I think there is more leverage than usual. The price of oil, the need for pilots, the fact that we're at our maximum number of large RJ's, and the fact that most of us have seen the damage and get the picture (partly because large-gauge scope ensures scope is now on everyone's radar).

I know that we've seen, in the past, effort to rationalize our stand (or lack thereof) on the issue, and maybe that's what you're adressing. I've been on the receiving end of the sell-job for C2K also, and don't buy it any more than you do.

 

Are we going to make more money? I want to make more money. I want to work less for more money, and I want to have more seniority. Let's make these things happen.