ASA/Expressjet Conference Call
11-17-2010 | 08:38 AM
#2
New Hire
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
From: CRJ CA
The worlds biggest douche ended it. Not really sure what his problem was but he came off sounding like a moron.
It was a lot of "that has yet to be determined"...."we wont know until the JCBA"....."SLI methods will have to be negotiated", etc...
It was a lot of "that has yet to be determined"...."we wont know until the JCBA"....."SLI methods will have to be negotiated", etc...
11-17-2010 | 10:11 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
From: ATR 72 FO
The Bachelor was there?!?!
11-17-2010 | 10:28 AM
#4
Banned
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
From: Delta Gear Slinger
I only listened for a few minutes and most of the questions and answers were worthless. Mostly people who haven't read their E-mails.
One of the most important questions asked concerned the proposed anti-whipsaw and scope language that was promised in exchange for not pursuing a 3-way list merge. The MEC pretty much went around the question stating that our current CBA's contained scope that prevented such whipsaw, etc.
Frankly, I'm not impressed. The most important thing in ANY contract is scope, and ASA's is weak at best. As it stands now, SKYW INC can transfer 5 aircraft per year to the SKYW certificate, not to exceed 15 total CR7/9 and 40 CR2. Anything over 5 aircraft per year requires 5 CA and 5 FO be allowed to transfer to SKYW. In my opinion, this language is unacceptable. We need the scope tightened!
Side note, everyone needs to participate in the JCBA survey on the ALPA website! Let them hear your voices!
One of the most important questions asked concerned the proposed anti-whipsaw and scope language that was promised in exchange for not pursuing a 3-way list merge. The MEC pretty much went around the question stating that our current CBA's contained scope that prevented such whipsaw, etc.
Frankly, I'm not impressed. The most important thing in ANY contract is scope, and ASA's is weak at best. As it stands now, SKYW INC can transfer 5 aircraft per year to the SKYW certificate, not to exceed 15 total CR7/9 and 40 CR2. Anything over 5 aircraft per year requires 5 CA and 5 FO be allowed to transfer to SKYW. In my opinion, this language is unacceptable. We need the scope tightened!
Side note, everyone needs to participate in the JCBA survey on the ALPA website! Let them hear your voices!
11-17-2010 | 11:48 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
From: I can fly.....I'm a pilot
I only listened for a few minutes and most of the questions and answers were worthless. Mostly people who haven't read their E-mails.
One of the most important questions asked concerned the proposed anti-whipsaw and scope language that was promised in exchange for not pursuing a 3-way list merge. The MEC pretty much went around the question stating that our current CBA's contained scope that prevented such whipsaw, etc.
Frankly, I'm not impressed. The most important thing in ANY contract is scope, and ASA's is weak at best. As it stands now, SKYW INC can transfer 5 aircraft per year to the SKYW certificate, not to exceed 15 total CR7/9 and 40 CR2. Anything over 5 aircraft per year requires 5 CA and 5 FO be allowed to transfer to SKYW. In my opinion, this language is unacceptable. We need the scope tightened!
Side note, everyone needs to participate in the JCBA survey on the ALPA website! Let them hear your voices!
One of the most important questions asked concerned the proposed anti-whipsaw and scope language that was promised in exchange for not pursuing a 3-way list merge. The MEC pretty much went around the question stating that our current CBA's contained scope that prevented such whipsaw, etc.
Frankly, I'm not impressed. The most important thing in ANY contract is scope, and ASA's is weak at best. As it stands now, SKYW INC can transfer 5 aircraft per year to the SKYW certificate, not to exceed 15 total CR7/9 and 40 CR2. Anything over 5 aircraft per year requires 5 CA and 5 FO be allowed to transfer to SKYW. In my opinion, this language is unacceptable. We need the scope tightened!
Side note, everyone needs to participate in the JCBA survey on the ALPA website! Let them hear your voices!
+1, we all need to add our input!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
dbrockman2
Regional
18
06-04-2007 05:50 PM
