How long can Alaska survive?
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Posts: 216
I’d bet that at least part of why we have an official director of union busting now is because management is expecting a private sector version of the Janus Supreme Court ruling to come down the pipe sometime soon-ish, so they want to be prepared to convince new hires that they really don’t want to give those evil unions part of their paycheck.
Plus, they probably figured out that if they can indoctrinate new hires that unions are bad at QX, and those people move to Alaska, it’ll weaken ALPA there, so it’s a win-win for management.
As for the FOQA thing, I remember Alaska blowing a gasket when that FO had the double stick shaker in ANC a few years back and the FOQA folks refused to give them confidential information, so I’m not at all surprised Alaska is trying to hijack it now.
Plus, they probably figured out that if they can indoctrinate new hires that unions are bad at QX, and those people move to Alaska, it’ll weaken ALPA there, so it’s a win-win for management.
As for the FOQA thing, I remember Alaska blowing a gasket when that FO had the double stick shaker in ANC a few years back and the FOQA folks refused to give them confidential information, so I’m not at all surprised Alaska is trying to hijack it now.
#13
I’d bet that at least part of why we have an official director of union busting now is because management is expecting a private sector version of the Janus Supreme Court ruling to come down the pipe sometime soon-ish, so they want to be prepared to convince new hires that they really don’t want to give those evil unions part of their paycheck.
Plus, they probably figured out that if they can indoctrinate new hires that unions are bad at QX, and those people move to Alaska, it’ll weaken ALPA there, so it’s a win-win for management.
As for the FOQA thing, I remember Alaska blowing a gasket when that FO had the double stick shaker in ANC a few years back and the FOQA folks refused to give them confidential information, so I’m not at all surprised Alaska is trying to hijack it now.
Plus, they probably figured out that if they can indoctrinate new hires that unions are bad at QX, and those people move to Alaska, it’ll weaken ALPA there, so it’s a win-win for management.
As for the FOQA thing, I remember Alaska blowing a gasket when that FO had the double stick shaker in ANC a few years back and the FOQA folks refused to give them confidential information, so I’m not at all surprised Alaska is trying to hijack it now.
They can try to indoctrinate the new hires, but then they fly with captains who've been here for a while and are set straight quickly haha.
#14
New Hire
Joined APC: Oct 2018
Posts: 1
I’d bet that at least part of why we have an official director of union busting now is because management is expecting a private sector version of the Janus Supreme Court ruling to come down the pipe sometime soon-ish, so they want to be prepared to convince new hires that they really don’t want to give those evil unions part of their paycheck.
Plus, they probably figured out that if they can indoctrinate new hires that unions are bad at QX, and those people move to Alaska, it’ll weaken ALPA there, so it’s a win-win for management.
As for the FOQA thing, I remember Alaska blowing a gasket when that FO had the double stick shaker in ANC a few years back and the FOQA folks refused to give them confidential information, so I’m not at all surprised Alaska is trying to hijack it now.
Plus, they probably figured out that if they can indoctrinate new hires that unions are bad at QX, and those people move to Alaska, it’ll weaken ALPA there, so it’s a win-win for management.
As for the FOQA thing, I remember Alaska blowing a gasket when that FO had the double stick shaker in ANC a few years back and the FOQA folks refused to give them confidential information, so I’m not at all surprised Alaska is trying to hijack it now.
All that being said, why are we members of the Teamsters, instead of ALPA? We contribute so little financially, that I don't think they really care what happens to us. I have absolutely nothing against the QXers that are our stewards; good people, and they bust their butts for us. However, the Teamsters proper have terrible leadership, and the lawyers that worked on the last contract couldn't look ahead more than three feet to assess what might happen in the future. The dang jets had never left the factory, so the company never violated the contract, which stated delivery and placed into revenue service, so someone please explain how they feel I am wrong. You have to look ahead and play the game from the other side's point of view.
Vent over on that, but, with all of the complaining about the company, and how you all feel like you have everything figured out and complain about the company leadership, did any of you apply for the base chief position, or didn't you have the stones to put yourself out there and try to change things for the better?
#15
Vent over on that, but, with all of the complaining about the company, and how you all feel like you have everything figured out and complain about the company leadership, did any of you apply for the base chief position, or didn't you have the stones to put yourself out there and try to change things for the better?
#16
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2017
Posts: 27
...with all of the complaining about the company, and how you all feel like you have everything figured out and complain about the company leadership, did any of you apply for the base chief position, or didn't you have the stones to put yourself out there and try to change things for the better?
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Posts: 216
Some of the current BCP's are really good people who will try and protect pilots, but it's pretty clear that upper management wants to eventually replace them with people who won't question anything that AAG does.
Since they appear to be considering allowing non-flying BCP's again, I'm wondering if they won't consider dragging some yes men (or women) out of retirement (or just grabbing them from Alaska) to make sure they don't end up with someone who might think for themselves sometimes.
Since they appear to be considering allowing non-flying BCP's again, I'm wondering if they won't consider dragging some yes men (or women) out of retirement (or just grabbing them from Alaska) to make sure they don't end up with someone who might think for themselves sometimes.
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2012
Posts: 456
Maybe you didn't hear about the very popular Chief Pilot over at Alaska that was just fired from that position a couple months ago. That is a prime example of why other than 'Yes men', don't bother applying for jobs like that. If someone wants to make a difference, get involved with the union. You don't have to agree with Teamster National to do so either. You are supporting your fellow line pilots, not the Teamster organization.
#20
Are you referring to LH? I thought they gave him the boot because he accurately warned them about the upcoming FO shortage and reminded them too often their strategy wasn't working.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post