New MEC Officer Elections In November
09-14-2016, 07:02 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,504
Originally Posted by Trip7
I was completely wrong about TA2015. No doubt about that. But long before TA2015 I've been a strong supporter of ALPA Scope Choke tactics.
It can be leveraged for greater gain in the negotiations. I've heard a couple times now that the company will drop PS changes in exchange for this. With proper block hour protections there can never be a time 50 more RJs hurt the pilot group. 30 more RJs from C2012 did not hurt the pilot group.
It can be leveraged for greater gain in the negotiations. I've heard a couple times now that the company will drop PS changes in exchange for this. With proper block hour protections there can never be a time 50 more RJs hurt the pilot group. 30 more RJs from C2012 did not hurt the pilot group.
09-14-2016, 07:26 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Originally Posted by JamesBond
So says you. Most pilots I fly with don't really think this is that big of a deal. They realize that 'making a stand' on this issue with the coming growth/retirements is stepping over $10s to pick up nickles.
09-14-2016, 07:39 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,414
Originally Posted by tunes
what part of they are going to drop the 50 seaters anyways is so hard to understand? Why should we 'negotiate' for something they are going to do anyways.
09-14-2016, 07:44 PM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 360
Originally Posted by Trip7
I was completely wrong about TA2015. No doubt about that. But long before TA2015 I've been a strong supporter of ALPA Scope Choke tactics.
It can be leveraged for greater gain in the negotiations. I've heard a couple times now that the company will drop PS changes in exchange for this. With proper block hour protections there can never be a time 50 more RJs hurt the pilot group. 30 more RJs from C2012 did not hurt the pilot group.
It can be leveraged for greater gain in the negotiations. I've heard a couple times now that the company will drop PS changes in exchange for this. With proper block hour protections there can never be a time 50 more RJs hurt the pilot group. 30 more RJs from C2012 did not hurt the pilot group.
The reason 30 more large RJs from C2012 haven't hurt us is because the company can't seem to get rid of the 50's fast enough. C2012 has nothing to do with that.
09-14-2016, 07:58 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,414
Originally Posted by trustbutverify
Again, I fail to see what we get for the large RJ give. You're saying the company will let us keep the profit sharing ALREADY IN PLACE for more large RJs. That makes no sense - we don't have to give up something we already have if we're willing to give up something in another area? What? How is that a gain for us again?
The reason 30 more large RJs from C2012 haven't hurt us is because the company can't seem to get rid of the 50's fast enough. C2012 has nothing to do with that.
The reason 30 more large RJs from C2012 haven't hurt us is because the company can't seem to get rid of the 50's fast enough. C2012 has nothing to do with that.
09-14-2016, 08:24 PM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 360
Originally Posted by Trip7
If C2012 had nothing to do with that, again I ask, why the difference in movement with AA vs UAL and Delta? Why are the Legacies that implemented Scope Choke rapidly expanding while the legacy that didn't is shrinking? AA has 600 regional airframes and many 50 seaters. Delta has 425 and this proposal takes it down to 350 in the next 4 years. Why the difference?
Now let me ask you a question, because I honestly don't know the answer. Didn't the company threaten extending the life of the 50's and not parking them if TA2015 was voted down? Did they follow through on that or are the 50's being retired at a rapid rate?
Last edited by trustbutverify; 09-14-2016 at 08:39 PM.
09-14-2016, 08:59 PM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,414
Originally Posted by trustbutverify
The difference is in the fact you have different companies with different business plans. If Delta wanted more 50's in service, they could have them and be within the PWA ratios - they aren't even close to the PWA limit. Heck, if Delta wanted to have more than the PWA allowable 50's, they could and would do that as well if it made sense for the company's business plan.
Now let me ask you a question, because I honestly don't know the answer. Didn't the company threaten extending the life of the 50's and not parking them if TA2015 was voted down? Did they follow through on that or are the 50's being retired at a rapid rate?
Now let me ask you a question, because I honestly don't know the answer. Didn't the company threaten extending the life of the 50's and not parking them if TA2015 was voted down? Did they follow through on that or are the 50's being retired at a rapid rate?
I'm in agreement that there will still will be growth absence an increase in big RJ relief. The big question is, will there be a deal for pilots by remaining militant.
09-15-2016, 03:55 AM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Posts: 217
Originally Posted by trustbutverify
If Delta wanted more 50's in service, they could have them and be within the PWA ratios - they aren't even close to the PWA limit. Heck, if Delta wanted to have more than the PWA allowable 50's, they could and would do that as well if it made sense for the company's business plan.
"Note one: Upon the delivery of a 223rd 76-seat aircraft, the number of permitted 50-seat aircraft will be 125 regardless of the number otherwise provided in Section 1 b. 46. f. Exception one."
09-15-2016, 07:24 AM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: A350 Both
Posts: 7,292
Originally Posted by gloopy
More DC-9 sized "RJ's" is a very big deal to many, and more and more by the day. Due to rapid, seismic demographic shifts taking place, this may very well be the last opportunity for management to get a single desirable thing WRT bottom end scope and they know it.
09-15-2016, 07:26 AM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: A350 Both
Posts: 7,292
Originally Posted by trustbutverify
Again, I fail to see what we get for the large RJ give. You're saying the company will let us keep the profit sharing ALREADY IN PLACE for more large RJs. That makes no sense - we don't have to give up something we already have if we're willing to give up something in another area? What? How is that a gain for us again?
Originally Posted by trustbutverify
The reason 30 more large RJs from C2012 haven't hurt us is because the company can't seem to get rid of the 50's fast enough. C2012 has nothing to do with that.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
