TOGA
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2002
- Posts
- 334
There's no reason we and the company can't both get what we want when it comes to Lynx. They've stated that they want separate companies & I (for one of many) think that anything with Frontier on the side should be flown by Frontier pilots. We need look no further than Continental/Continental Micronesia to find an example of a nearly identical arrangement in action. They are separate companies whose airplanes are all flown by Continental pilots. Frontier Airlines Holdings gets to have whatever it is they think are the advantages of separate companies, and we get the job protections we need. If we can get the union to forward this specific suggestion to the company, and the company says 'no', doesn't that tell us something about their plans?
As for the argument I keep hearing that a 'well-qualified' applicant would forced into the right seat of the Q400, that would be, IMO, the most significant problem with this arrangement. There are some possible work-arounds . . . fences, seat locks or some other leapfrogging scenario. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I do see it as a surmountable challenge. Much better than accepting the same screw-job that's been handed to every single pilot group before us that's dealt with a holding company/wholly-owned subsidiary scenario. How many 'well-qualified' applicants do you think we'll get when our growth is stagnant and our future even less certain? In case any of my fellow F9 pilots are wondering, yes, I have repeatedly voiced my concerns and suggestions to the union . . . to no avail. Its been made clear that their minds are made up that the upcoming TA, with its scope clause, will be the answer. I wonder how many other union administrations have thought the exact same thing in recent years. Do you think they were right? If not, you need to make some noise, and I mean now! This thing is shaping up as I'm typing, and I get the distinct impression that my dissenting opinion is one of very few the union is hearing. I keep talking to guys who say 'whatever's going to happen is going to happen'. If that's the way you take this on, that's exactly what will happen . . . to all of us! The only way we can get what we want is if we make it known that it is what we want. 'One list' is the only way this will work to the benefit of all parties concerned. By granting us this request, the company would keep its single most valuable asset . . . loyal, dedicated, motivated pilots. That, in turn will allow them to meet the expectations of those they work for . . . the shareholders.
As for the argument I keep hearing that a 'well-qualified' applicant would forced into the right seat of the Q400, that would be, IMO, the most significant problem with this arrangement. There are some possible work-arounds . . . fences, seat locks or some other leapfrogging scenario. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I do see it as a surmountable challenge. Much better than accepting the same screw-job that's been handed to every single pilot group before us that's dealt with a holding company/wholly-owned subsidiary scenario. How many 'well-qualified' applicants do you think we'll get when our growth is stagnant and our future even less certain? In case any of my fellow F9 pilots are wondering, yes, I have repeatedly voiced my concerns and suggestions to the union . . . to no avail. Its been made clear that their minds are made up that the upcoming TA, with its scope clause, will be the answer. I wonder how many other union administrations have thought the exact same thing in recent years. Do you think they were right? If not, you need to make some noise, and I mean now! This thing is shaping up as I'm typing, and I get the distinct impression that my dissenting opinion is one of very few the union is hearing. I keep talking to guys who say 'whatever's going to happen is going to happen'. If that's the way you take this on, that's exactly what will happen . . . to all of us! The only way we can get what we want is if we make it known that it is what we want. 'One list' is the only way this will work to the benefit of all parties concerned. By granting us this request, the company would keep its single most valuable asset . . . loyal, dedicated, motivated pilots. That, in turn will allow them to meet the expectations of those they work for . . . the shareholders.
uke: If the last five years of this industry's history haven't proved that scope clauses don't work, I don't know what will. That's exactly the crux of my argument here . . . FAPA's going for scope, scope doesn't work, we need to do something about it right now.
