Originally Posted by SEPfield

ALPA has just informed us and the company that the Chief Pilot can violate the contract at will.

“A flight assignment given to a ready reserve pilot will depart within the ready reserve period.”

This is not an ambiguous sentence, it is black and white. It does not have a caveat that states "unless the chief pilot orders it"

While this particular issue may not affect most of you, consider the precedent it is setting. How many other provisions of the contract can be over ridden by the chief pilots order? What is the point of having a legal binding contract if it can just be rendered null and void by a chief pilot?

Laws are ofter determined by precedent and this is a very dangerous one

Originally Posted by sweetholyjesus

I understand exactly what's happening. I'm just surprised (well, not really) that you would not only choose do nothing about, but also support and justify it. They did go around your Union, unless I missed something and your Union approved these bonuses hmm? You let them take money from your pocket and put it into the pocket of non-Union probies. And you're glad because this benefits the company... As I said, enjoy!

Originally Posted by SEPfield

Yes I am a stupid new hire. I failed to read the contract because I couldn't believe people would actually vote for something as bad as this. Thats fine it was my mistake. The position I was in at the time made PSA the best option at the time, again my fault not the companies. That does not mean I'm not going to try and improve things and that does not mean I won't come on here and point out the shortcomings of the contract to potential new hires and encourage fellow pilots to attempt to improve the contract. Meanwhile you seem to just want to encourage people to bend over and take it because thats what they signed up for, thats just a defeatist attitude.

At the end of the day I'm just here to get some PIC, after I get what I feel is enough I will go somewhere else that has a better contract and an easier commute. Hopefully that will be a legacy, if not I'll happily go to an LCC and get a new type and wait there. In either case I'm certainly not sitting around at PSA waiting for a 10 year flow under this current contract. Maybe if PSA wants to pay a little more and make the contract a little better I'll consider staying, but for now I'm not staying a day past what I consider necessary. So hey maybe you will upgrade someday, if the flow keeps up and more airplanes aren't deffered

Originally Posted by Crjreg007

You did miss some thing clearly. The company didn't go around the union because bonuses are not a union matter. They are given to pilots before they are even part of it. The union has zero say in bonuses. Stop saying I'm glad because this benefits the company. ILL MAKE THIS BOLD SO IT IS EASIER TO READ. I DONT SUPPORT WHAT THE COMPANY IS DOING. THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY CAN AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO IT.

Originally Posted by 272922

Except there's a very clear difference between law and the CBA. The underlying legal principle involved is "fly now, grieve later." The underlying philosophy of the RLA is to keep commerce moving. Codifying the ability of an employee to bring a halt to commerce simply by question provisions of the contract is pretty antithetical to that.

While you and I also both agree that the CP was wrong, it's also within the company's prerogative to discipline should they feel the need. So instead of a possible termination and subsequent grievance for insubordination, we instead have a grievance for a contract violation. In the first case the pilots involved are without an income until settlement of the grievance, in the latter case the pilots can continue to earn an income and reap the benefits of a settlement later.

I'm not saying the company would absolutely terminate in an above hypothetical case (they probably wouldn't), but what I am saying is that TR advocated a conservative course of action that could set the pilot group up for a bigger win later on.

Originally Posted by sweetholyjesus

I'll do the same. AS LONG AS YOU CONTINUE TO LAY ON YOUR FACE AND TAKE IT IN THE REAR FROM THE COMPANY, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

Originally Posted by Crjreg007

Growth and new hires means less reserve, quicker upgrades, better schedules and the ability to flow more to American creating and overall better QOL for every one. I guess you consider going from zero 121 time to a line holding captain in 3 years taking it in the rear. I tend to think of it as better overall QOL, pay and career progression but hey what do I know. Ask our 3 years CA if they will trade their place with an Endeavor pilot.

Originally Posted by 272922

Except there's a very clear difference between law and the CBA. ...

Originally Posted by Tikiman

Rumor has it ....Scheduling is repeatedly violating law.

Rumor...Scheduling is repeated adding flying after blocking--when reservist are required to call and check out.

They know the law, most new guys don't. If they protest they are threatened with a call to Cheif pilot who very few (right or wrong) believe support the pilots.

http://www3.alpa.org/portals/alpa/co...quirements.pdf

See reserve info. Page 28 Question and answer 87.


The contract says they can but the law says they can't.