It's been a LONG time coming, that base has a LONG history of special treatment courtesy of Starley and Abbott. There has been 777 and 756 flying forced into that base for as long as I can remember, almost always at the expense of the EWR base.

This resolution was brought up once before last summer in IAH. It was shot down by those in attendance and withdrawn. Now, it has passed? Sometimes you just have to make sure that you have the right audience magically show up at the meeting.

OK, I want flight ops to open a base in morgan city Louisiana so I can go fishing every day and I also want to be the number one B777 Captain there.


Can I get a special carve out for that?


Seriously,

If ALPA negotiates a special "deal" for IAH B737 pilots they do so at the expense of the rest of the dues paying membership. So, I doubt if ALPA would do this as ALPA has a duty of fair representation for all pilots.

Additionally, the company runs the airline not ALPA. If we somehow get in the manpower planning and staffing business, then the membership, if disenfranchised with the result will be mad at ALPA and not at management. It's management's mess to fix, not ALPA's. We certainly don't want to negotiate against ourselves, and with our own dues dollars.

I believe the LC 171 Resolution to be "out of order." I most certainly would call for a point of order on this for the above mentioned reasons. Moreover, who wrote this? It is very poorly written.

I can guarantee everyone that at least one member of the LEC in IAH did everything in his power to try and stop this nonsense from ever seeing the light of day.

When excess is inevitable, sit and wait for the Positive space and company move. Like a lot of us. Think a lot of this will be absorbed in 78 and 320 growth. Between 40 and 60 Bus Captains needed now. Guessing 300 crew Bus base in IAH eventually and 78 growth is in the plans.

But, if in the near future the company reopens vacancy bids for the seats they excess out of this summer, any faith i have left in ALPA will be gone. Their recent move to collaborate with the company to violate the clear and simple language of the contract on Aggressive Pickup being first come first serve at 1100, and then blame a nonexistent MOU (MOU4), is pathetic. The 24 month grandfather, like the ORD 74 folks got, would be a great way to prevent that from happening.

The ORD grandfather was because the 400 base was closed. The IAH guppy is only a surplus, happens all the time.

I think you have identified something very key here.

I actually believe the union tells Howard Attarian what to do and when to do it. I think ALPA is running the airline. If ALPA is "collaborating" that's no different than getting union "buy in" and the company getting "buy in." Rarely are the company's interests and the union's interests aligned. Safety, Security are two important ones, but after those two, I don't see the company and union agreeing on much, nor should they.

There should be mutual respect and understanding for each other's position and aggressive/assertive posturing and negotiating to advance that position. In the end, the company gets as much union as it deserves. In the end, the dues paying membership of the association at large are the ones that the association has a duty to represent fairly and in an unbiased manner, neither advancing nor protecting one demographics interests above the others.

The company will shift flying about quite a bit. Probably for four reasons.

1. They have absolutely no clue as to what their fleet plan/growth plan should look like next year, or in three years. They have no clue at all, and they freely admit it.

2. Management treats the pilots like seasonal migrant avocado pickers. We are simply labor to them, who can be moved about from field to field, farm to farm, crop to crop, and season to season as they deem appropriate. We would need stronger "home town" contractual protections to keep us and our families' in place.

3. Management's idea of "stability" at the airline is a body in the seat. How they get it there is a function of two things: Monthly (PBS) bidding, and via system staffing events. They really don't care who is in the chair, as long as the chair is manned. It's the union's job to insure adequate protections are in place for both system staffing events and monthly scheduling.

4. Management waits to see what Delta and American are going to do before deciding anything. They simply don't push the competition to compete in the industry, they instead just play "catch up" trying to chase the RASM's and PRASM's.

Apples and Oranges dude. If the company CLOSES IAH 737 and then wants to reopen it......then what you said would make sense. But since only a small percentage will be displaced, you're talking nonsense. What about DEN 76T? ORD 76T? DEN 320? They have seen displacements without any cry baby whining. Why should this be any different?? As for the new RSV seniority pickup?... Just get in line and STFup. Seniority....it's whats for dinner.

Maybe they can call on the Great and Powerful and nonexistent MOU4 to give everybody a 24 month right of return if the Boston Consulting Group might be a tad off and seats surprisingly return to where they just disappeared. Like in Ord on the 74.

Two things in play here.
1. The company gets it wrong. A lot.
2. The MEC represents different parts of the pilot group differently.

And yep i am getting in line just as soon as the letter shows up. Denver is nice in the fall i hear.