It had nothing to do with RJ flying. The LOA was dealing with the relaxation of scope for the Star Alliance. Thankfully, the MEC voted it down.

 

Small narrow-body...works for me! Stand strong guys!

 

Either way, thank you for holding the line.

 

What's pathetic is that if this would have passed the company said there would be no need to furlough. Explain that to me. How does voting in a LOA change whether or not CAL needs to furlough. What a bunch of b.s. IMHO, the company is just using those unfortunate pilots as hostages, or leverage to get us to bend to their pressure.

 

Exactly, pretty transparent! And now the ball is back in the company's court. I'm curious as to whether the company is violating labor laws by initiating this furlough under false pretense.

 

Well, it won't be false pretense if they do in fact furlough 148 or more. I can assure you there will be no contract around here until late 2010. Mark my words.

Was I for this. Not sure. I read the document but there are many things discussed today in Executive Session that you or I will never know about. So I can;t say one way or the other.

I just simply know that the NC, and the appropriate Chairs of the related committees including, merger were in support of it. So in reality the LECs voted a no confidence today in every committee from scheduling, furlough to merger. So how do we proceed from here? Seems as though the LECs must ask everyone to step down as they are clearly not on the same page.

I'm in the 2100 range so this thing really did not affect me. I'm not an IRO, I won't get furloughed, I do not fly over 650 hours a year, and if I want/need to nod off here and there east bound I will do so in the CA seat. But we did in a round-a-bout way sell safety again. We clearly made the point that a price is to be had once again for safety. Same as C02.

If I was on the lower 300 I'd seriously ask my reps one important question.

Now that you voted no. Fine. What are you prepared to do if the company does not come back for more and we do furlough and a year passes and we still have no contract or improvments to the current POS we have now? What are your plans for this pilot group and the furloughees at that point?

I'd like to see what their answers would be to that. Hopefully, they thought long and hard about that before they sent a resounding no back out there is all I ask not knowing for sure if the compnay will furlough or not.

 

None of this is true. Had nothing to do with 20, 30, 40, 50,70, 90, or 285 seaters. BS flag big guy.

 

Heard from two sources I trust that the Alliance Oversight Committee Chair was against it.

I disagree. Think of it as a marriage, every difference of opinion does not result in a divorce (OK, using marriage and divorce on an airline pilot forum is probably a bad idea).

I've flown with three pilots getting furloughed in the last month or so, and many on the list of 500 since the letters were first sent out, and every one of them said they didn't want to be used as leverage by the company. They'd rather be furloughed (and make more money) than come back to a lousy contract.

 

The company stated the furlough was as a result of exorbitant fuel costs. Now fuel prices are relatively less exorbitant but there is still a need to furlough unless of course we relax scope and then we won't need to furlough. I consider that false pretense whether there is a furlough or not.

I think the MEC for once took exactly the correct action.

 

Just exactly how long do you think these furloughees will be out? I mean, they are asking for VJM almost every day when we have our current staffing model.

Don't you think that come next summer they will bring some of these guys back to fulfill the flying need with the summer schedule? My friend who's last day is Sept. 9th was asking me and I don't have a clue as to what to tell him. Any ideas anyone?