|
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1161280)
Pure speculation on your part. Again, you're unable to provide facts.
Anyway, it's an anonymous web board (and subject to declining participation). Nothing more. There is no "burden of proof." Folks are welcome to take or leave what they see here, without contributors being beaten about the head and shoulders by overzealous mods such as yourself. |
Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
(Post 1161586)
This post is mostly my opinion.
I believe if we have a TA this year, it will have scope erosion in it. EB is making comments about finding "creative solutions" to get rid of 50 seaters that are under contract. I will tell you his creative solution is getting rid of 50 seaters and replacing them with 76 seaters. Here's the problem. The company has completely maxed out the number of 76 seaters allowed. My opinion is the company is going to order some more CRJ-900's to replace 50 seaters. They will say they are only going to put 70 seats in them. They will then go to ALPA if they haven't already and seek scope relief. They will sell it to ALPA as we are getting 717's (increasing the amount of Delta pilots) and actually decreasing the amount of airplanes flown by DCI (decreasing the amount of outsourced pilots). They might even tell ALPA that if ALPA does not agree to it, they will keep the DC-9's or even bring some DC-9's on property to get above the number of mainline aircraft allowing them to bring more 76 seaters on property. Then pull all of the excess planes out of the system while keeping the 76 seaters and imply that they will get more 76 seaters with or without a scope sell. I don't trust ALPA one bit at this point based on their past history. I hope our pilot group as a whole is smart enough to vote down a TA, but we will be under enormous pressure from both ALPA, the company, and the thought of more money short-term. |
Nevermind..........
|
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
ALPA lawyers do have a duty to the individual pilot as well as the association. But if your job is ever on the line, you never...and I mean NEVER allow an ALPA lawyer to represent you exclusively. Always hire outside counsel who is expert in wrongful termination lawsuits. Carl |
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1161547)
Still, that difference would be 23. Divide by 76 equals 30 cents per seat per flight. Divide each seat by an average 500 mile stage length and you get a stunning effect on CASM.
Stunningly insignificant that is. |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1161651)
ALPA lawyers do have a duty to the individual pilot as well as the association. But if your job is ever on the line, you never...and I mean NEVER allow an ALPA lawyer to represent you exclusively. Always hire outside counsel who is expert in wrongful termination lawsuits.
Carl Generally, the first instruction any lawyer is going to give you is to not talk about the case with anyone. So can we assume that it was the pilot that was not paying attention that discussed the supposed conversation regarding the ALPA attorney's responsibilities? The best advice you can pass to the friend of the friend is to stop talking, and listen to the professionals. |
Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
(Post 1161665)
After reading ALPA's section 1 opener again, I would like to quote myself and stand by the above. Section 1 says we want to "improve balance of flying between Delta and DCI." This means we could allow the company to replace 50 seaters with 76 seaters as long as the ratio is less 76 seaters coming on line than 50 seaters going off line. It also says that we want to "expand furlough protection to include all pilots on date of signing related to permitted 76-seat jets." We are in trouble. I am under the impression that ALPA does not care how much flying is outsourced as long as we do not furlough. In 5 years, furloughing is off the table due to the retirements. In the mean time we could stagnate forever.
|
Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
(Post 1161665)
After reading ALPA's section 1 opener again, I would like to quote myself and stand by the above. Section 1 says we want to "improve balance of flying between Delta and DCI." This means we could allow the company to replace 50 seaters with 76 seaters as long as the ratio is less 76 seaters coming on line than 50 seaters going off line. It also says that we want to "expand furlough protection to include all pilots on date of signing related to permitted 76-seat jets." We are in trouble. I am under the impression that ALPA does not care how much flying is outsourced as long as we do not furlough. In 5 years, furloughing is off the table due to the retirements. In the mean time we could stagnate forever.
Ultimately, the reps can vote to NOT ratify the scope cave-in that the MEC will most certainly produce. It will be extremely hard for the reps to do that because many of them will have never seen the kind of pressure that an MEC and ALPA national can put on them. But if we all hound the living daylights out of our reps, it might give them the spine they need to not ratify the TA. It's our only shot now. Carl |
|
Originally Posted by DeadHead
(Post 1161695)
Oh man....so are you! Carl |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:46 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands