Alaska contract

[eskimopilot]

I'm not sure why this TA is a shock.
All you need to do is read new section 25.P.6.
(VSA)
Furlough: The provisions of this paragraph will be suspended while any pilot is on involuntary furlough.

This is the pilot group you belong to. The selfish screw over the guy/gal next to you for a buck type. Is it so bad that we have to put language in our contract to stop this behavior? Why yes it is. The only good news is it is a tacit admission that even the company thinks the behavior is disgusting. Wonder what this little gem cost us at the table. Everything has a price of course.
Will it pass? Of course it will. The sad part is some of our fellow Union brothers will possibly vote no because of the potential lost earnings during a furlough.
You know it's the truth.
Regards.

 

[SRMairlines]

Voted Against as well.

Our ALPA leadership will feed the ALK management pipeline for the next 5 years. How come we can't force ALPA leaders to sign a NO COMPETE clause like management does?

 

[imacdog]

I've always been a long time admirer of ALK. From an outsider perspective, I don't get it. ALK is one of the most profitable legacy's. You guys should be tops for 73 pay. Scope is an issue as well. Now is the best time to get this stuff.

Sounds similar to what occurred at NetJets. Two key union leaders, (one was the president), feathered their own beds by angling their way into management after they negotiated the last contract.

They did move into senior management but the contract they negotiated for the pilots was popular and if I remember right, passed in the high 70 percentage range.

If I were an Alaska pilot I'd be very, very concerned about the scope section of this agreement. Did the negotiators not learn from the other legacies when it comes to scope, or are they just too senior to care what happens to the bottom 30% of the pilot group when Skywest starts dangling 100-seaters at management meetings?

 

[imacdog]

I'm not sure why this TA is a shock.
All you need to do is read new section 25.P.6.
(VSA)
Furlough: The provisions of this paragraph will be suspended while any pilot is on involuntary furlough.

This is the pilot group you belong to. The selfish screw over the guy/gal next to you for a buck type. Is it so bad that we have to put language in our contract to stop this behavior? Why yes it is. The only good news is it is a tacit admission that even the company thinks the behavior is disgusting. Wonder what this little gem cost us at the table. Everything has a price of course.
Will it pass? Of course it will. The sad part is some of our fellow Union brothers will possibly vote no because of the potential lost earnings during a furlough.
You know it's the truth.
Regards.

I'm assuming this means voluntary open time flying or similar? Without this provision, the union may not be able to ask pilots not to pick up open time during a furlough without violating the RLA. So as strange as it sounds, it is good to have this in writing.

 

[eskimopilot]

I'm assuming this means voluntary open time flying or similar? Without this provision, the union may not be able to ask pilots not to pick up open time during a furlough without violating the RLA. So as strange as it sounds, it is good to have this in writing.

You are correct on VSA (paid at 150%). But you miss the point. The Union shouldn't have to ask pilots to not feed at the trough during a furlough That's basic humanity 101.
Because of the outlandish self serving mentality of some in our group our negotiators had to codify this. Believe me, nothing we negotiated that could be considered a plus came free.
Regards.

 

[Old School 737]

Can't they just do premium pay trips instead of vsa ...

 

[heywood jablome]

Guys,

I heard from a Capt. "in the know" that management's position on negotiating any scope protection for us was "a non-starter" from day one...no matter what.

Kind of makes you wonder why that is SO important to them? Hmmmmmm......sounds like a HUGE red flag to me.

No scope=no YES vote. It's really not that complicated.

 

[Old School 737]

Guys,

I heard from a Capt. "in the know" that management's position on negotiating any scope protection for us was "a non-starter" from day one...no matter what.

Kind of makes you wonder why that is SO important to them? Hmmmmmm......sounds like a HUGE red flag to me.

No scope=no YES vote. It's really not that complicated.

So if that's the case .... Worst we can do is send it back and they throw more money and 401k until we vote yes...

But I would rather have scope..!!!

 

[imacdog]

Sounds like they have big plans for Skywest in the future.

 

[Ski Bum]

Another "Against" vote.

Anyone who has ever operated in section 25 of our current book knows that what was "negotiated" and the "intent" doesn't mean anything unless it is written. And most of what is written is vague. The NC's explanations, if they are so great, should be written in the contract's language.