|
Originally Posted by disenchantMINT
(Post 3548467)
Are you familiar with the term "conflict of interest"?
The same party can't fund both sides of a legal dispute. JBU and SPA MECs need to pay their own way. Why this is objectionable or mind-blowing to you is.... bizarre. If you'd like to opt out of the assessment and direct our representation to place your name at the bottom of the ISL I'm sure you could email the MEC to request that. |
Originally Posted by IAFDOF
(Post 3548517)
I mean, it’s not mind-blowing, but it also isn’t immediately obvious, either. No sense being mean to the guy about it.
|
Originally Posted by Flyhayes
(Post 3548493)
ALPA can't represent ALPA when representing itself against ALPA. All the union dues we pay go directly to ALPA national, and then they are tasked with allowing us to draw on those funds. But since we're going toe to toe with another ALPA carrier, we can't draw on those funds. So instead we seek outside legal representation, that we have to pay for directly.
|
Originally Posted by disenchantMINT
(Post 3548524)
It isn't obvious that the same party paying for legal representation for both sides of a legal dispute would create a conflict of interest? No one was being mean.
|
Originally Posted by IAFDOF
(Post 3547859)
Yeah, unimpressive for sure. Their new max captain is barely beyond our current rates. Oof.
Our MEC had better do a lot better than this. Nothing against the ULCC guys at all, but if we want to hire and retain, we have to be a lot closer to the big boys than this nonsense. We now have a solid percentage of ASMs on premium lie-flat and premium economy products. From both cost of living and revenue perspectives, we should be compensated much closer to the legacies (as we have been historically). As the premium European project expands and we begin to fly XLRs capable of generating MORE revenue than a legacy 757 (tons of premium seats, fuel savings, etc.), we should expect compensation more closely aligned with our legacy competitors. More if the company intends to grow versus shrink. We should certainly be compensated more closely to the legacies than Spirit for the above reasons—this isn’t a knock on their pilots (who I respect completely). It’s just logic: we’re responsible for more revenue when we go fly, and we do it out of vastly more expensive geographic markets than they do. What still puzzles me about JB’s position is that there seems to be little consideration of the impact of VDA/EPS on overall pilot payroll costs. I’m no genius, but you cannot tell me if they simply inked DAL AIP + 3%, and padded the RSV grids and padded some block, made pos space commute permanent—that they couldn’t reduce overall payroll expenditure (particularly in RSV months). Running lean looks great on paper and protects against downside risk, but when you’re paying out massive amounts of VDA/EPS/attrition-attributable costs on a regular basis, there’s an argument to be made to just acknowledging that the cost of doing business has increased, and fixing those costs into your budget. Then you can at least plan around it. The company needs Dave Ramsey to come in and say “hey y’all—it ain’t workin—you’re paying these guys 2x pay month after month to cover yer schedule…yer losing half yer new hires. Yer gonna have to put on yer big boy pants, and pay them market rate…or yer gonna have to shrink. Cuz this ain’t workin” 😂😂😂 |
Originally Posted by AYLflyer
(Post 3548412)
Why does everything have to turn into a "Don't be a cheap pilot?". I should just happily open my wallet and let them have free reign? What happens if in the end we aren't happy with the SLI even though we paid for representation? I guess we were being too cheap and should have paid even more for better lawyers?
At no point did I say I don't want representation. In fact, I thought I was paying someone already to cover the representation and what goes with it, but I guess not. Like I said, this is my first merger, but so far I don't understand how ALPA-ALPA integrations means that ALPA money can't be used when we ALL pay dues to be part of the union. I've been reading the ALPA manual and in section 45 it talks about mergers and SLI. It specifically states that ALPA won't pay for representation and that MECs should collect funds. The reasoning doesn't make sense to me. National has 2 ALPA pilot groups that are going to merge, yet they put their hands up and walk away from the situation not wanting to spend national money to cover our lawyer fees? Wouldn't they want both groups to have a healthy merger and want to be sure that we get the best chance when going up against management? Obviously nothing we can do about it, but it's very frustrating to see this buried in an email and the expectation is to just shut up and be happy about it otherwise you're a "cheap pilot". |
Originally Posted by PSU Flyer
(Post 3548566)
Do non-members and management pilots have to pay for representation as well, or are they exempt somehow?
|
Originally Posted by PSU Flyer
(Post 3548566)
Do non-members and management pilots have to pay for representation as well, or are they exempt somehow?
|
Originally Posted by DontCallMeCindy
(Post 3548750)
It’s not just a function of competing with the legacies—3/5 of our bases and the vast majority of our pilots are based in domiciles with the highest cost of living in the United States. Lauderdale and Orlando are no longer affordable by any means either, compared to say Chicago or Detroit.
We now have a solid percentage of ASMs on premium lie-flat and premium economy products. From both cost of living and revenue perspectives, we should be compensated much closer to the legacies (as we have been historically). As the premium European project expands and we begin to fly XLRs capable of generating MORE revenue than a legacy 757 (tons of premium seats, fuel savings, etc.), we should expect compensation more closely aligned with our legacy competitors. More if the company intends to grow versus shrink. We should certainly be compensated more closely to the legacies than Spirit for the above reasons—this isn’t a knock on their pilots (who I respect completely). It’s just logic: we’re responsible for more revenue when we go fly, and we do it out of vastly more expensive geographic markets than they do. What still puzzles me about JB’s position is that there seems to be little consideration of the impact of VDA/EPS on overall pilot payroll costs. I’m no genius, but you cannot tell me if they simply inked DAL AIP + 3%, and padded the RSV grids and padded some block, made pos space commute permanent—that they couldn’t reduce overall payroll expenditure (particularly in RSV months). Running lean looks great on paper and protects against downside risk, but when you’re paying out massive amounts of VDA/EPS/attrition-attributable costs on a regular basis, there’s an argument to be made to just acknowledging that the cost of doing business has increased, and fixing those costs into your budget. Then you can at least plan around it. The company needs Dave Ramsey to come in and say “hey y’all—it ain’t workin—you’re paying these guys 2x pay month after month to cover yer schedule…yer losing half yer new hires. Yer gonna have to put on yer big boy pants, and pay them market rate…or yer gonna have to shrink. Cuz this ain’t workin” 😂😂😂 Underrated post, IMO. Bravo. 👏 |
Originally Posted by AYLflyer
(Post 3548412)
Why does everything have to turn into a "Don't be a cheap pilot?". I should just happily open my wallet and let them have free reign? What happens if in the end we aren't happy with the SLI even though we paid for representation? I guess we were being too cheap and should have paid even more for better lawyers?
.................. Obviously nothing we can do about it, but it's very frustrating to see this buried in an email and the expectation is to just shut up and be happy about it otherwise you're a "cheap pilot". Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:07 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands