That or burning down the house. You pick.

 

It's a yearly minimum. They have to credit 540 hours or lose benefits the following year.

 

So far it's been a non issue for the company. There have been virtually no part time pilots. I know of one in ATL.

 

DALPA wants the exact same thing. It provides the least risk to ALPA national...which is the prime objective.

One would think so, but not anymore. ALPA is an insurance company now. Collect the dues (insurance premiums), then work tirelessly to minimize risk to the insurance company so claims never have to be paid out. Keeping labor risk "completely off the table" is how you best minimize the risk of ever paying a claim.

100% correct. ALPA national isn't even pretending to be a union anymore. It sees it's future as insurance to pilots...as long as they can scare pilots into believing they need the ALPA job insurance service.

True again. Although I've urged everyone to fill it out anyway. It will be ignored, but we need to fill it out.

It would have been great if we had all taken screen shots of each page of the survey, then had the results compiled by a third party survey vendor. Man would that have made DALPA mad.

Carl

 

Any way we can have your posts play the French National Anthem?

Carl

 

You're correctly describing a non-union occupation Alan. Which may well be a Freudian slip on your part.

Our value is set by the power and influence of collective bargaining, not the free market system. The fact that you and so many others don't see that is disappointing and does not bode well.

Carl

 

The power and influence of collective bargaining is one part of the free market system. Other parts include profitability of the employer, relative compensation levels at other carriers, etc.

 

And it is on the strategy that has been employed so far that there is disagreement. Some would argue that it has failed because we have not yet restored our compensation to what we had before. Others would argue that it has succeeded because we continue to lead the other mainline carriers.

As you say, a significantly more aggressive posture has not been tried in our situation, so there is no clear cut answer as to whether it would succeed. Ergo, my initial argument that calling those who would disagree with such a posture as being "misguided or dumb" is inappropriate. They may well be wrong, but that is no reason to malign them.

 

We are going to continue to disagree. I believe it is extremely misguided and dumb in this situation to have no clearly stated restorative objective and, even worse, to act like you don't expect anything of the sort. I believe that is self evident. Your mileage may vary.

 

Fair enough. While I may or may not share your opinion as to the best strategy to employ at this point in time, I believe that it is the utmost in arrogance to proclaim such opinions of a person regarding a subject about which you and I can only conjecture.