|
Originally Posted by Columbia
(Post 1177066)
Maybe word got out to the Street that capacity will be further reduced, outsourcing increased, or a pilot pay raise of 5% will soon be announced.
I dunno, but generally people get out on a Friday. Just interesting that LCC and DAL both popped while the rest of the sector lagged. |
Originally Posted by Columbia
(Post 1177066)
Maybe word got out to the Street that capacity will be further reduced, outsourcing increased, or a pilot pay raise of 5% will soon be announced.
I dunno, but generally people get out on a Friday. Just interesting that LCC and DAL both popped while the rest of the sector lagged. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1176896)
Lets be factually correct here. DALPA approached the company to open early. The company agreed. They did not approach us.
Last week I spoke DIRECTLY to one of the ALPA negotiators. He said, "The company came to Dalpa and asked to open early". This same guy has been around forever. He is a professional negotiator whose past goes back to negotiating for Eastern. So to be factually correct straight from the horses mouth......you sir may be factually incorrect. I will admit I was not in the room with management and Dalpa but I tend to believe a first hand source over an Internet screen name. Sailing, you are a voice of reason and provide a good con argument to many posts....even if I don't agree with your kool-aid. With that said, who is right? Who really cares though. Today I had an AirTran jump seater who also is part of the swa/tranny transition team. Last week she was in a meeting and Gary Kelly was there. He was quoted as saying they want to get rid of the 717's ASAP! She also said the tranny 717 training folks were told to grind to a halt and the 737 peeps were to gear up for a bunch of work. |
FWIW regarding the AT fragmentation clause.
I want to say the langauge says something to the effect of "The company will attempt to negotiate a transfer of pilots with equipment". If that's the case, I'd say it'd go something like this: GK: Um, the AT pilot contract sez we need to try to send the pilots with the airplanes. Um, whadd'ya think about taking them? Delta: Um, no. GK: Ok. How about those Bears? Delta: Helluva game, helluva game. Nu |
Originally Posted by hoserpilot
(Post 1177078)
Last week I spoke DIRECTLY to one of the ALPA negotiators. He said, "The company came to Dalpa and asked to open early". This same guy has been around forever. He is a professional negotiator whose past goes back to negotiating for Eastern. So to be factually correct straight from the horses mouth......you sir may be factually incorrect. I will admit I was not in the room with management and Dalpa but I tend to believe a first hand source over an Internet screen name. Sailing, you are a voice of reason and provide a good con argument to many posts....even if I don't agree with your kool-aid. With that said, who is right? Who really cares though.
Today I had an AirTran jump seater who also is part of the swa/tranny transition team. Last week she was in a meeting and Gary Kelly was there. He was quoted as saying they want to get rid of the 717's ASAP! She also said the tranny 717 training folks were told to grind to a halt and the 737 peeps were to gear up for a bunch of work. FWIW, I was told the same thing as well. Some want to purport it the other way. I guess they may think it reduces leverage or the way you state makes us think we have more leverage, but at the end of the day the reality is that both sides are meeting face to face continually. To put it bluntly, that would not be happening unless the company needed us to have a new agreement asap so that they can go ahead with more of their plan. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that. On the ATN stuff, I also head that the 717 side of the house was told what you were told. It was about three or four weeks ago. |
Originally Posted by Elvis90
(Post 1177075)
Hmmmm...interesting. Do they know something?
Based on their returns, they are morons. |
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1176942)
Yeah we're chicken and egging this one a bit. My point is that getting the jets at mainline is great. That's the goal. But they were just given up, and for a reason. Simply keeping another pilot group in the MEC would have done nothing to change that, but even if it did and even if it resulted in a "staple" the company could still then go out and outsource 255 large RJ's, 153 of which are extra large RJ's. Ironically bringing the CPZ large RJ's to mainline could have ended up allowing even more large RJ's to be outsourced under the 3:1 check valve.
The problem/crime wasn't that CPZ pilots weren't put onto the mainline list but rather that the seat range that they fly off the list wasn't put on the list. In addition to that, operating them separately under a different contract as an outsourced airline really opened up DALPA/ALPA to a major DFR down the road. I'm all for bringing the flying back and putting it on our list. But we have to get the flying back first. Putting pilots on the list to do flying that's not covered in our scope does little and only inks the water even more than it already is. While I think I understand what you're saying, this is one of those sit and discuss things vs type back and forth. Because, I'm not sure what is your opinion vs fact and where those facts come from. For example, since it went pure party line vote, I'm always a little suspicious of what appears to be party line. We do agree on the end goal and agree on what is bold above. Take care. Ferd |
Hey all, go read the newest Chairman's letter from Tim.
|
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1177087)
No.
Based on their returns, they are morons. On a side note, the MEC Chairman sent out a note on negotiations, going well, highlighting a significant increase in mainline block hours and a much more favorable mainline/DCI ratio. |
...deleted
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:22 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands