Ames CAL Pilot Survey
03-25-2011 | 11:43 AM
#11
On Reserve
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
From: Furloughed
03-25-2011 | 06:45 PM
#12
Thread Starter
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,086
Likes: 0
From: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
03-25-2011 | 06:49 PM
#13
Thread Starter
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,086
Likes: 0
From: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
03-26-2011 | 05:50 AM
#14
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 17
From: 737 CAPT
APC – You might be correct. I’ll only offer one of several possibilities to consider. There could be many reasons they could be asking this question. Not all bad.
Not sure as to the make up on the negotiating committee, but one reason this question could be asked is to merely squash the argument of one of the committee members. I have no inside scoop, but I could see polling the group to get the leverage to quiet down a committee member that’s way off the mark. I’d hate to think that we haven’t learned from our past mistakes (Trade Scope for $$). But the bottom line is you have the final say whether a TA is ratified.
I’m definitely not accusing or have any knowledge. I only want to point out that there are a lot of reasons to poll…. Some not as obvious as the others.
Not sure as to the make up on the negotiating committee, but one reason this question could be asked is to merely squash the argument of one of the committee members. I have no inside scoop, but I could see polling the group to get the leverage to quiet down a committee member that’s way off the mark. I’d hate to think that we haven’t learned from our past mistakes (Trade Scope for $$). But the bottom line is you have the final say whether a TA is ratified.
I’m definitely not accusing or have any knowledge. I only want to point out that there are a lot of reasons to poll…. Some not as obvious as the others.
We KNOW the company wants to eliminate scope (their ultimate desire) or at the very least extend the UAL scope to the CAL operations. So it is being discussed at the table. The company could be saying that our union really doesn't know what we want regarding scope vs. all other parts of the contract if they improve (i.e. make a trade). The union could be saying we know what our pilots want, but let's find out. Let's put all the various options on the table that management wants to discuss with us regarding scope. We'll put in the options, not hide them, and let the pilots show us their desires.
That could be the reason for the question the way it is. You have all the options that management will want to discuss. You have the option the union wishes as the outcome. Now you tell the union which one is best for you (and the combined pilot group) and let them take the results to the company to say, "I think we have a concrete idea of what our pilots want."
Just another way to look at that question.
03-26-2011 | 08:00 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
Likes: 0
I just think at the core it is an issue that should not be on the table in any way, at any time. There is not even a neutral position here. Like it or not, we're one big pilot group of 12,000 pilots now and not only can we not give away more, but UAL's relaxation of scope must be completely undone. It is OUR problem now. The only acceptable outcome at the end of this is the trifecta of reversal of scope, new FAA rest rules, and retirements kicking in, resulting in not only in all recalls, but a hiring frenzy of 110 pilots per month that goes on for years.
If there was a question at all it should have been:
32. Would you strike to get back from furlough at UAL:
a. 300 pilots
b. 600 pilots
c. 900 pilots
d. 1200 pilots
e. 1547 pilots
THEN they could go to the company and say "We took a survey and CAL pilots are willing to strike to get UAL pilots back on the property. What a surprise!"
Sometimes how you word the question definitively predetermines the outcome.
Last edited by APC225; 03-26-2011 at 08:38 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
