jsled

Not to mention we ended up with 38 E170s versus 115 CRJ700s. The CRJs were allowed by contract...ie WE VOTED FOR IT. So despite the "he gave away the store" BS, the company chose the CRJs 3 to 1 over the E170. But hey, it makes for good cockpit chatter.

C11DCA

Certainly true, but I'm guessing that the fact that Skywest was our largest Regional partner, and they flew only Crj's had something to do with it as well.

Old CRJ 700 lineup: Skywest, Mesa, Go Jets
Old Emb 170: Republic

What PW did give away was leverage in addition to the actual scope relief.

untied

I knew that the pensions were gone the day we entered bankruptcy. No doubt about it.

Whiteford wasn't that smart.

He gave up everything in an attempt to save his pension. He even allowed the separation of the narrow body fleet from the rest of the fleet (10 days off per month, all reserve days moveable, etc).

They played him real good.

What a dope.

baseball

NO. We don't want to inter-marry.

Management is management and union is union. Let's not pretend to be something or someone we are not. It will make it hard to hold management accountable if we have a pilot on the BOD "guiding" them. We can "guide" management through mutually beneficial collaborative projects when and where appropriate. Let's not even pretend this is a good idea. Bad-bad idea.

management will use your "psuedo-managemnt" posiiton against you and the pilots. They will manipulate you and leverage you. Bad, bad idea.

Dave Fitzgerald

So, bury your head in the sand? The BOD member has been invaluable, and management hates it.

It is a very important position, if nothing else, it keeps somewhat in check, the BOD and CEO from doing monumentally stupid stuff in regards to various employee groups. Someone is watching...

baseball

History shows and demonstrates that management is very good at manipulating pilots. bury your head in the sand.....NO. use other methods and resources to get, verify, validate, and compare information. ....yes Management can and will use this position against us. They will leverage you and let you think you are in the club house and have a key to the executive washroom. The risks outweigh the benefits.

We are not limited in how, when, where, and by what method we gain intelligence. A seat on the board blurs the lines and that is a perception we as pilots can't afford as it tends to also erode unity, especially if this pseudo-board member ends of talking the talk and walking the walk that management espouses.

The union is the union. Management is management is management.

The MEC all sign confidentiality agreements, and therefore have the access they need for the information they need. At the end of the day we need unity above all things. Management won't really feed our pretend board member anything meaningful, other than what they want him to feed on and chew on.

baseball

The MEC votes in the MEC Chairman. So, no, the pilots don't get to elect him. The MEC has their reasons for voting for a Chairman. The Chairman's job is to implement the will of the MEC as a body and govern as well as insure the policies and votes of the MEC are enforced. This is a completely separate skill-set.

baseball

Well, NO. First, it will be used against us. That much history demonstrates. Second, it blurs the lines. Third, we can get our information other places.

We all know we aren't "co workers" same goes for management. Pilots are pilots. We should act like it and do what we do. We have a union and it needs to do what unions do.

baseball

I am a former MEC rep, and former ALPA volunteer for over 15 years in various committees. SO.....

baseball

There is no benefit for having an ALPA MEC Chairman, or any other ALPA person serving on the company's Board of Directors.

The ALPA person who has served on the MEC has never gotten "full" access. The information is:

1. Targeted
2. Filtered
3. framed
4. deliberate and metered
5. manipulative

So, no great benefit for our dues money. If we negotiate something, then that means we traded for it. We had to give something up to get something. So, the real question is: what did/would we give up to gain, attain, and/or keep that perceived "access." That is really the question you want to ask.