OK... we get you don't approve of the Chairman. I am not going to sit here and argue with you. If you have been keeping up (and by your previous posts you have) some have worked very hard to fix your concerns of full time buy. Away from the financial displeasure you assert, the Chairman does work every day for you and the other 1249 pilots under the PCL umbrella. The problem is that line pilots only recognize tangible success (such as a contract in this particular situation). Things going on daily on the MEC and in the Chairman's work are not seen by most because the MEC is giving 100% effort to get all the pilots something tangible, until that happens many say "nothing is being done". It's been 5.5 years and the emotional roller coaster needs to stop. This fact hits every pilot- regardless of what position they may have in the union.

The union leadership has a plan, but broadcasting it on a public board or even an email gets forwarded directly to mgmt. Yes, we have those that send every grain of info and rumor directly to mgmt. By broadcasting the plan with associated contingency ideas would greatly reduce any chances of success. You don't see the company telling the rank and file employees "the plan" either.

You mentioned picketing... I'm all for it and have been very vocal in favor, problem lies in a couple areas. 1, it would be only us for a group of all 3. 2, if this entire JCBA blows up how does it favor us to the NMB when the Pinnacle group was picketing against the company's actions when we also had to agree to extend negotiations? It's akin to ordering a steak "medium" and when it arrives "medium" saying, NO- I wanted it RARE!? The company showed a piece of their "plan" when they asked to have the DTW picketing cancelled prior to a 45 day negotiation- they didn't want the negative exposure. What did we get out of that? The ability to work towards a JCBA and sli. If the time comes where progress has completely stopped and the company retreats to their corner we all know that picketing would be very effective. Now, everyone is skeptical that this will work out, especially with all the items still on the table and only 2.5 days scheduled prior to a hard deadline set on both sides. If Dec. 2 comes and goes without a TA on the JCBA the Pinnacle pilots go back to the NMB. The MEC has no doubts that the pilots want a contract and the company knows they will need one if they expect performance to improve and having any chance of the Sli that they badly want. The holdup for any of the company's "plan" is the pinnacle pilots- a contract is the only solution to going forward. No contract at 9E would be very bad for the company, both immediate and in the future as the company wants to get more flying. The current JCBA negotiations are getting the full attention of the MEC and Negotiating committee, if that doesn't work out full attention returns to a contract for the 9E pilots under section 6 of the RLA. The NMB is watching this entire process very closely.

As far as the sick policies, some may recall that the union DID play a big role in getting a policy changed since it did go outside the bounds of the contract. The current contract allows the company to ask for a note whenever they want, and that same language is in EVERY contract- both at majors and non ALPA carriers. As far as telling pilots to call in sick, the union can't and shouldn't do that- why? Because regardless of where you work, or even what type of flying you are doing the FAA already mandates that pilots do not fly if the pilot is not 100%. If a pilot is sick and still flying the pilot is already in violation of the FAR's. If a pilot is sick, he/she is expected to call in sick- regardless of the "sick policy" says. Notice how all the policies start out saying that pilots should not fly sick? The company is simply trying to discourage the mindset of many that "a bad schedule is one sick call away from being good". If a pilot is sick, they shouldn't be flying, if a pilot is healthy there is an expectation that the pilot will be a professional and honor his/her commitments to the job.

Any union, employer, agency, or group will always have "problems" and ALPA is no different. The people who can fix the issues are the leaders and the membership. The "union" is 1250 pilots at pinnacle, and the 53,000 that make up ALPA. The leadership is still part of the union but works at the behest of the overall membership for the entire union. If you think it's bad with ALPA, what do you think the work climate would be with no protections? We wouldn't have a contract to even deal with and the company would be able to do almost anything in their favor. Look at other groups just a pinnacle and see what has happened to just their healthcare costs! Some groups had increases in costs of over 100%. I hope the $5 that the pilot's are now paying more than last year aren't putting too big of a dent in the checks. There is much to accomplish and change, but nothing will get accomplished if we are just out to chop each other at the knees. The company gets to live on easy street if the entire group isn't even working together. "United we stand, divided we fall".

 

The sim issue is one problem, but to my knowledge that either has been fixed or will be fixed shortly. The big problem has been lack of instructors- it's not that there aren't enough, but it's the problem of having to remove a guy from line flying to instruct and not having the proper staffing to cover the void as instructors are removed. It's a "chicken and the egg" situation- do you remove the instructors to train more pilots and leave line flying uncovered OR do you cover the line flying but then not have the pilots desperately needed?

 

wth? Why is our management so stupid that they couldn't foresee this? "Hey, we're gonna have upgrades AND newhires at the end of the year, so lets proactively either hire new instructors, or start pulling current ones off the line slowly so we won't be bottlenecked." Does it really take a genius to figure that out? I've been here several years, so I guess nothing surprises me with our management clowns.

 

Higney,

Thank you for your post, you have provided some good insight and I appreciate it. I understand there are many things happening on the MEC level that I will never know and he doesn't get credit for those things. I also understand that he won't divulge the exact plan of action. But in my opinion from the outside looking in I think our union, more specifically the mec, could be more vocal and more aggressive towards the company. We never should have cancelled that picketing event. I think it made us look weak and showed the company how easy it is/was to make us roll over. It's the one thing we can do to put pressure on them, as you are well aware. Lastly, we shouldn't have to vote to make him fly or stay current, although I appreciate what was attempted. He should be out there among the "troops" working and experiencing the nightmare with us. If he was current and picking up flying people would respect him a lot more.

 

I agree with every word you typed.

 

Higney, you've contradicted yourself. If the company "badly wants" a SLI/JCBA (statement 2), then we didn't really "get anything" (SLI/JCBA talks) by cancelling picketing (statement 1)

So let's use some simple logic to clarify who wants what and who is getting what.

There are two possible theories concerning the company's intentions about reaching a JCBA/SLI:

Option 1) The company truly "wants it done." If this is the truth, us picketing or not picketing had nothing to do with them "granting us" the opportunity for SLI/JCBA talks--the potential cost efficiencies are what brought them to the table, and picketing or not picketing had nothing to do with it.

Option 2) The company does not truly "want it done" and they seized the opportunity we provided them when we proposed a JCBA/SLI to stall negotiations and progress at all three airlines (primarily 9E and 9L), and the opportunity to make it through the holidays with no pickets, no bad PR, and no work diruptions.

The truth very likely lies in whether the cost efficiencies of a merged airline, fleet, and single certificate are greater than the direct and indirect costs incurred with a passable JCBA, plus all training events associated with eventual seniority list integration, plus the bonus, etc.

My personal opinion is that Option 2 is "the truth." My reasons are as follows:

1) The company had this buyout planned (roughly) a year ago, when they first proposed dual qual. Lawyers and executives plan things like this out--they don't dive in ramshackle without some sort of analysis or strategy. When they announced they'd be "asset transferring" jets and making 9E the jet fleet, and making XJ the prop fleet, they weren't just pulling that out of their arses--those are carefully selected legal terms.

If they had even considered the possibility of signing a JCBA with all 3 of our airlines within the last year, their negotiators would already have very well-defined proposals on all sections of the new contract based on current book and predicted needs from TA1 failing. The pace of negotiations indicates to me they were basically doing things as they went along--as if they (mysteriously) hadn't even considered the possibility of a JCBA anytime in the recent past.

2) If the company wants a JCBA/SLI to gain cost efficiencies, they surely have a good idea of how much they'd save from a JCBA/SLI. If the company really wanted it done, they'd merely walk in with "Best Final Offers" in each section based on those numbers, and it would be done a lot faster than what we're seeing.

3) More than 2.5 days of negotiations would be scheduled already if they had any intention of finishing this before the new year. And if they really want it done, they wouldn't want to wait much longer, now would they?

Also, Higney, with all due respect, you're kind of the "boy who cried wolf" leading up to the last TA vote concerning the mythology that the company "would be back at the table within a week if we voted it down" that "Delta wanted all labor disputes settled by 2009" and that "they would come right back to the table because they had to have the TA to finalize the United flying."

I'm not saying TA1 was desirable, and I'm not saying anything against your character, merely pointing out some history, since most of us have a 6 month attention span and Fall of 2009 is ancient history...

 

Nick- there are many ways to get to a final destination. And the "boy who cried wolf" routine is not at all accurate. I have said from the get go (prior to any union involvement) that if you are going to do things, do them right the first time. A rush job is seldom done right the first time. It's been far too long (5.5 years or 1 year however you look at it) but I have never said it would take no time flat. It could take 5 minutes, but we all knew it would take some time even with the company exerting a genuine "best effort". The company wants an Sli, it'll be via JCBA or within a contract for 9E pilots with Scope infringements requiring an Sli. You have my number, we can talk about the rest privately.

And nick... I would like to see those actual quotes... I have always tried to find a reason as to motivations on behalf of the company but have always been, and will always be, knowing of the company's track record in regards to negotiations. I can give you many reasons why they COULD want this JCBA/Sli done and many additional theories as to what could force their hand- but I will never and have never forecasted a date for it to come together into the form of a contract that would be acceptable to our side. And to your 1 & 2 theories- there is far more involved than is in the post.

You can't change history, but you can surely learn to expect the same in the future.

 

PS> Can we change the name of the JCBA updates from "Staying Current" to "Not Staying Current?"

I mean, our MEC Chair doesn't have to stay current (or qualified), so why not change the name of our newsletter to something more appropriate???

While I'm at it--don't let me catch anyone getting upset about management pilot rights (aka when E.F. flies the line or W.P. upgrades out of seniority)--at least those guys grace us with their presence on the line flying the airplane every now and then!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I don't have any questions, and I do have your number

 

While I'm at it--don't let me catch anyone getting upset about management pilot rights (aka when E.F. flies the line or W.P. upgrades out of seniority)--at least those guys grace us with their presence on the line flying the airplane every now and then!!!!!!!!!!!!![/QUOTE]

Did I miss something? I'm curious if WP upgraded or is planning on it out of seniority? IF that happens just add it to the list of things that the MEC didn't do anything about.