SoCalGuy

I too heard the '300' number a few weeks back. During the Town-Hall dial in the otherday, Jay Pierce in his opening, as well as Phil Lomness, both commented on this topic. Their comments were not long winded, never the less, cited this as being a concern that seemed alive and well....as far as liquidity shortfall.

Boneman, I'm not doubting you....just curious if you personally have talked with/or seen in any R&I corespondence that states this is not a real concern or problem between now and next years G-Rate hit?? Any expanded insight on your oppinion or otherwise would be appreciated....Thanx.

BeenThere

A word about scope, if I may. Giving any airline scope relief will result in a substantial amount of flying being whipsawed among the Mesas and Republics of the world, and will not result in keeping any junior pilots on the property. Do not delude yourself into thinking that "just a little" scope relief will save your job. It will not. Junior guys & gals will, at best, be offered a seat on an RJ/EMB170/190 flown by a low-bid small-jet-provider--maybe with recall rights to your old airline, someday. As the bean-counters and lawyers ruining this business strive for ever cheaper pizza, they will always try to farm out marginally profitable flying (which describes most domestic routes these days) to the lowest bidder. This will continue as long as the flying public prefers $99 fares to paying for a safe airline operation. Unless, or course, a prominent politician or a famous "journalist" should die in an accident. Then things will change.

Meanwhile, save you job the right way: NO SCOPE RELIEF EVER!

flybynuts

This snapshot is really jacked and worthless. Mitigation is not even shown on this so between the two, it is a waste to even look/plan off of it. The mitigation will be posted after the bid closes. It is then and only then will be know the mitigation numbers. Also, people without spots can still have a job as with the last bid with 20 or so guys.

Daytripper

Sure. Is there an airline who has relaxed scope and their mainline pilots benefited from it? I have a feeling that your idea of job security is getting bounced out of a Boeing or Airbus into a Canadair or EMB170 at 50% pay. And...it may work for you. Not so much for me. Now, back to my original question. Could you present some facts and figures to substantiate your musing? Quotes, are about as useful as runway behind you.

Boneman

Well, actually anyone over 55 with ten years of service can retire. Three hundred is not a large number. Maybe 1,200 would have an impact, but 300 is just a drop in the bucket. My question would be if you had over $500,000 in your lump sum and you were over 55 why would you stay here and put up with this crap?

jdt30

The stress of the job, and then worrying about your A fund doesn't seem worth it to me either. I'm not saying that to get things stirred up with the age 60 crowd, just my opinion.

Boneman

Hey, I agree. My A Fund will only be about $30K. I could make that working at Wal-Mart for a year (with overtime).

FlyingW

From the Magenta Line:

Item 14: Chairman’s Editorial

Why I Voted for the Furlough Mitigation RFL LOA

The direction you gave us as your elected leaders to avoid any new furloughs was clear:

- Absolutely “No Concessions”

-Don’t give anything up in order to achieve any mitigation

-Any program created must be voluntary

As long as these three objectives could be achieved you directed us to try to save jobs.

Tara and I firmly believe we followed the direction from our pilots and made the appropriate decision to approve the RFL LOA. We felt that way after our several hour MEC Conference call on the evening of August 11th to review the document . We still feel that way today.

Now let’s review the three objectives as it relates—in my opinion—to the RFL LOA:

1: Concessions – No pilot, especially those above the projected furlough line will be negatively affected in any way by the RFL LOA. Unlike last year’s agreement there will be no effect on your PBS awards with regards to pay or quality of life degradation.

2: Don’t Give Anything Up – No JV/Scope relief – No pay cuts – we didn't give anything up to save projected furloughed pilots jobs. For those who think we should have attained 55 hour no fly lines, did you want us to give something up to attain them? If so, you did not direct us to do that. We had no leverage to attain this LOA, and I am not going to use 146 pilots on the brink of furlough as that leverage. When we use pilots as leverage to attain anything in negotiations, we will do so by using each and every pilot on the seniority list, not 146 on the chopping block. Equal sharing of load and pain is required—and what unity and belonging to a union is all about.

3: Voluntary – No one is forced into RFL. You don’t like it, don’t bid it.

Now let’s address the time line. Tara, Kaye, and I were kept in the loop by Jay Pierce for the past few weeks as to the progress and details of the negotiations. Nothing was a surprise—these types of negotiations don’t occur in a vacuum. We had 24 hours to review the detailed and extensive bullet points. While I agree an hour to review the complete document (with complete and full language) is short, however, we were under absolutely no pressure from anyone to approve or even vote on the LOA. Ask anyone on the MEC, Tara and I are not in the least bit shy. If we felt we had any questions unanswered, or concerns that the document was in the least bit flawed or could be a determent to of any of our pilots—especially those above the furlough line—in a New York second we would have used everything at our disposal including the roll call vote to delay or kill the LOA.

We, as an MEC, spent almost two hours going line by line over final LOA language with the Negotiating Committee, MEC Officers and ALPA attorneys. The LOA is very short, straight forward and not in any way complicated. Everyone who voted to approve the document did so after all questions were answered. No one felt pressured to vote on the document; if that was the case we would have delayed or canceled the vote.

I also want to point out that subject matter experts like our Scheduling Chairman and PBS expert Dave Owens were involved in the process with the Negotiating Committee from day one and they also felt the LOA should be approved. This was not the case with last year’s furlough mitigation. This LOA fixes several problems created by the previous Furlough Mitigation LOA and, again, not to the detriment of any pilot above the furlough line.

Since Tara and I were convinced that items 1, 2, and 3 above were in no way compromised, we felt we had a duty and obligation on behalf of the pilots who may get furloughed to approve this LOA. It really was that simple.

I also want to point out that not only is it a benefit to those who may get furloughed but every single pilot on the list would benefit in a seniority integration with these effected pilots on the property vs off the property.

Now, let’s discuss for a minute the job performance of your Local Council 170 Officers—or just your two representatives on the MEC, Tara and me. In the very near future, your MEC and Negotiating Committee will be conducting more Wilson Polling. There will be specific questions asked as to the performance of the LEC 170 Officers and our Communications. I ask everyone who participates to be brutally honest.

Lastly, I want to make the following comments. Things are very different today with regards to how our MEC operates vs the Contract ‘02 era. Unlike during Contract ‘02 the MEC Representatives (the eight elected status reps and the single flight instructor representative) make the big decisions. The MEC Officers, the Negotiating Committee, all other MEC Committees and ALPA experts work for the MEC. Last time around you could basically argue the opposite. We as MEC Representatives are not pressured to do anything, and if we were, personnel changes would take place immediately.

Our Negotiating Committee and MEC Officers are all very talented and doing a great job. If we believe we have problems with their job performance then the appropriate changes will be made.

If, after all of the above, you are still not pleased with the RFL LOA, then please direct the blame squarely where it belongs: with the eight MEC Representatives who voted to approve this LOA— NOT JAY PIERCE, NOT THE NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE, OR ANY ALPA EXPERTS!


“It’s good for the company to have a unified pilot force…If you guys are of all one mind then it does help the negotiations.” - Captain Fred Abbott, Newark Pilot Meeting, August 12, 2009

FlyingW

The days are now getting closer to the deadline for RFL. Please use this weekend to reflect on being able to help.

Take action! Be a stand up pilot and save a junior pilots job. Don't be that person that says I should have helped. Be that person that can proudly say I did my part for a fellow pilot.


Last year the union did a good job trying to stop furloughs and many pilots stepped up. Now there is another great opportunity to show that pilots do help other pilots. Let's prove CAL Pilots are united and not let anyone go to the streets this time.


THANK YOU


deadline: Monday 24 August 1000 CST

Boneman

Two new snapshots posted today: 19 Aug & 21 Aug. Damned efficient of our MP Staff.