I hear you. but sometimes I don't think ALPA hears the membership, so it would be nice to hear them say the words we are saying to them.

I wonder how often they look at the inverted pyramid model....

 

The only clear message will be when membership rejects a subpar tentative agreement. If a TA passes, the MEC is representing the membership.

The point here is that it’s still profoundly important to talk about these (any) issues to your fellow pilots. So few of us actually attend LEC meetings, and fewer follow through on local resolutions. If we’re not talking to each other, it’s hard to know what the majority actually wants.

 

Actually, I would recommend going one step further. Ping your LEC Reps as well on any concerns and discuss it. I’ve relayed my opinions in no uncertain term to my reps. No, you won’t get any inside info on what’s going on, but they are your only avenue to provide feedback to the Negotiating Committee at this point.

Their email and phone number is on the ALPA website.

Idle talk amongst line pilots doesn’t send a message other than *****ing between line pilots.......

Don’t wait for an AIP and TA to try a better comm tactic.

My 2 cents.

Lee

 

Ask all of us on the Alaska forum about relaxing scope... or not having any.

 

You’ve got that message backwards. Otherwise spot on.

 

Let me fix it.....

Membership to elected union leadership: Scope is not for sale.

Union leaders to Membership: Got it! Not selling scope.

Membership to Membership: I think the leaders got it. Let's keep them honest and hold them accountable.

Membership to Union: reminder: Scope not for sale.

Union leaders to union leaders: Don't screw this up.

Got unity?

 

Seriously..
Tool of the Day worthy Thread~

Just Fly Safe, Fly Professional and Fly the Contract.
Scope ain't for sale. It's been withered away over the last 2 decades enough!

Nope... either we fly the 100seater New Small Narrow Body or the company doesn't add more 76 seaters.

Next

Motch

 

I say if the company wants more 76 seaters, then I want less outsourcing in total sum. ... let them talk ... the company really wants 76 seaters ... let’s see if we can choke them some more regarding outsourced flying ... they just might want those 76 seaters enough to give big on both the top and bottom of the outsourced flying spectrum ... especially since there seems (bluff or not who knows) interest in the 100 seater ... hopefully the NC sees an opportunity here.

 

I have been open to other options that would improve mainline while shrinking the regionals. The more I think about the more that I realize that our current language should be left alone in an effort to accomplish that. They are maxed out on 76 seaters. The 50 seat jets are getting old and they have been flown hard. When maintaining them becomes cost prohibitive, they will go away and the regionals will be left with the 76 seat jets that are already out there. I can’t imagine 76 seat jets at mainline right now, but it is for the company to decide how we replace those seats at mainline. They can decide on 100 seat jets, or if it is more cost effective to fly a 737/319 with a few empty seats, then so be it.

 

I would like to point this out. The company is adapting to our current scope language. Look no further than the CRJ550. Everyone here needs to realize that the 50 seaters (CRJ200,EMB145) are on life support with limited time left (last EMB145 was delivered in 2006). The current offering of 76 seaters are made to be scope compliant but the next generation are all over weight (except I believe the MRJ just said they would make one at 86K). The company needs this agreement; we do not. Our current scope requires reducing the 50 seaters if they exercise the SNB with additional 76 seaters. I would love to see us work in wide-body protections but not at the cost of more express or more 76 seaters if they get 319/737-7 or whatever work around the company wants. I wish everyone could see this is not about hourly rates on an airplane.....it’s about the next downturn. Also don’t believe the company talking points on cost for additional fleet types. They are not 100’s of million of dollars per year. Maybe at most 100 million over the lifecycle of the airframes.....but what is a 100 million bucks when you are coming up on almost 10BILLION in stock buy backs!!!!!!!!! I beg everyone of my fellow pilots to see that the cost of an additional fleet is small and is covered mostly by the additional revenue by offering the right size plane on the route. Oh and Incase you think I’m crazy UAL already owes a plenty of 175’s and the cost of those fleets leave enough meat on the bone to hire 4 management teams, plus 4 different training centers, plus 4 different scheduling departments and so on .......( I do realize that UAL only owns Mesa and express jets 175’s but still they have 4 different operations).