Air Wisconsin, we hardly knew ye

[crashpad]

Said it before, it's like watching Roman gladiators.
Would'nt it be something if the Air Wisco 'Amigos' came up with a game plan to go solo like ACA? Even if it did'nt work, it sure beats the alternative.

 

[aewanabe]

Well, looks like Chautauqua and Mesa will strike again....this is the price Air Wisconsin will probably pay because others are willing to whore themselves out.......last time it was Chautauqua accepting a lesser contract to get flying ( and yes I know this as fact from an employee who was at the roadshows during your negotiations)...its a sad state when these types keep pushing the industry down...I know not all of them voted yes and some are strong but it still took a majority to get it to pass.

Sleeve. Pure and simple, bs. Not only did I attend the roadshows, I was flying with a member of our EXCO (the Teamsters' MEC) during negotiations. If you've got the balls, PM me or any other CHQ pilot the name of this person. Otherwise, STFU. BTW, did you know our CEO has ALREADY started asking about concessions to our 70 seat rates because of Jet Blue? Our current EXCO told him to pound sand. OOPS, weren't we supposed to start creaming our jeans and taking a paycut so we could get even MORE flying? **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**, screwed that one up.

 

[nimtz]

Otherwise, STFU. BTW, did you know our CEO has ALREADY started asking about concessions to our 70 seat rates because of Jet Blue?

UNF*CKING BELIEVEABLE! Those @ssf*cks want a pay cut on a simple 3 buck override for captains only. You guys better be ready to face up hard, ie start strike fund now, with those suits next time around.

 

[cocknbull]

I hope Air Wiskey keeps those routes. I think that this is UALs harball play to get AWAc to lower its rates. I think it is time for AWAC management to share in some of the risk and lower their fees. No more 20% returns on low risk fee for depature jobs. The AWAC pilots did there part now its time for management to step to the plate.

 

[JohnDoe]

Apparently I am not seeing the "big picture" here.....

How is Alpa responsible for United MANAGEMENT'S decision to put a bid out for a new feeder to reduce their costs???



On another note.....not too long ago I remember reading several regional guys from different carriers swearing that not only would their pay be going up, but that they would not be subject to concessions. Well, here is yet another example that the concession sh!t rolls down hill. Managements are getting their concessions from mainline, now they are targeting everybody else. Does this really suprise you? Did you honestly think they wouldn't cut costs everywhere they could? They don't care how much you make.......all they know is that they have an endless supply of pilots willing to do it for less money, and Alpa has nothing to do with that.

 

[rptrain]

.......all they know is that they have an endless supply of pilots willing to do it for less money, and Alpa has nothing to do with that.

Apparently you're not familiar with the concept and goals of a union.

 

[JohnDoe]

quote:
"Apparently you're not familiar with the concept and goals of a union."


And apparently you aren't familiar with that little thing called supply and demand. If nobody was willing to work for such wages, they would have to pay more.

The fact remains that management knows they have a supply of pilots out there willing to work for less.

The membership of the union at these individual carriers voted to accept these wages.

Care to address my first question?

 

[Mel Sharples]

How is Alpa responsible for United MANAGEMENT'S decision to put a bid out for a new feeder to reduce their costs???

ALPA is responsible for trying to represent multiple airlines and then doing NOTHING to actively stop the whipsawing.

Did those pilots sign their contracts? Yes. But ALPA does nothing to stop one pilot group from stealing another's flying. They talk a good game but do nothing with action.

I know you and I have argued this before. I know your personal feelings on the matter, but ALPA national is singing a different song. They are saying they CAN represent regionals and majors. If it were up to them they would represent EVERY airline on earth. We all know that is a very, very bad idea.

ALPA national is pushing brand/family scope. Maybe not you personally, John, but YOUR union and YOUR MEC are as responsible for this as anyone.

ALPA said they would put an end to this and they have done NOTHING to stop this whipsawing game. Maybe this time they will step up and make a move, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

I just you wish you would look in the mirror for once and stop telling all regional pilots to "deal with it." Your not happy with what your company is doing to you, why do we have to be happy about where we are? Yes, it is a supply and demand game but that is exactly where ALPA, your union and OUR union, should be going to bat and putting an end to this crap.

So much for the "bi-lateral scope committee." Thanks for nothing. . .




.

 

[General Lee]

Who seemed to start this whole mess? Who was the first regional to "go for growth for OBVIOUS less pay?" Everyone will probably say Mesa, but I don't think they really had a choice. I think it was Skywest, who voted without ALPA pressure to fly bigger than 50 seaters for 50 seat rates. Don't blame ALPA, they had nothing to do with that.......



Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[rptrain]

And apparently you aren't familiar with that little thing called supply and demand. If nobody was willing to work for such wages, they would have to pay more.

If you don't believe that part of a union's purpose is to place artificial control on the marketplace, then we cannot have this discussion. But, hey, thanks for the economics lesson, professor.

The fact remains that management knows they have a supply of pilots out there willing to work for less.

This very statement admits that the union has failed. If there's cheaper labor available with nothing to stop management from using it, then what good is the "union?" An ineffective union is worse than no union at all, because it lulls people into believing that their jobs are secure when they are not. We either have to compete in a free marketplace as individuals, or we must have a strong union that prevents the whipsawing that's now taking place. Personally, either way is fine with me. But I don't want to be placed in an environment where I'm tied to a CBA with no control over my future, while other parties are free to take over my job. That's simply not fair. Either let me compete or protect my job.

It's not ALPA's fault that management behaves the way it does. But we (and WE are ALPA) have failed to implement the basic job protections that a union should provide.

 

[AFELLOWAVIATOR]

If DAL went into chapter 11 and got all contracts voided, then put out an RFP for 777, 767, md88, 737 flying, I wonder what LPA Nat. would have to say.


They would be screaming . ALPA is as worthless to Regional pilots as tits on a bore hog. I for one would like to see a movement away from alpa.

 

[rptrain]

Who seemed to start this whole mess? Who was the first regional to "go for growth for OBVIOUS less pay?" Everyone will probably say Mesa, but I don't think they really had a choice. I think it was Skywest, who voted without ALPA pressure to fly bigger than 50 seaters for 50 seat rates. Don't blame ALPA, they had nothing to do with that.......

Ah-ha, but they did! DAL and UAL ALPA could have had scope that prevented code sharing with non-union partners. Nice try though, General.

Better yet, ALPA could have never let the code-share cat out of the bag to begin with. OK, my hindsight is 20/10, but that's the way I see it now. I think it's time to start putting the toothpaste back in the tube. It'll be messy and it won't all get back in, but at least we'll have learned our lesson.

 

[JohnDoe]

Somebody else said ( can't remember if it was this thread or another ) that the union is only as strong as its membership.

If certain parts of the membership are willing to work for a certain amount of money, what do you expect the union to do for you?? Don't want lower pay, don't approve your next contract or concessionary TA. If you feel you "have to" then you have made a choice.

I'm tired of seeing this typical lazy American sense of "entitlement" coupled with "its everybody else's fault but mine."

Exactly what do you expect the union to do with regards to the low pay people are WILLING to work for?? Go to all the regional managements and decree "thou shalt not pay any less than $xxxxx for any pilot position"?? You know darn well that won't work in our capitalist society. There will always be a hole for management to squeak through (if nothing else, chap. 11), and since there is always somebody willing to work for less (who may not be Alpa) they will always have another source of labor.

General brings up a good example. Skywest has shown that people are willing to forgo pay in exchange for "growth." Stop expecting other people to protect you from yourself.

 

[General Lee]

rptrain,


Dalpa could have had scope language preventing code sharing with non-union carriers? We had that for code shares with other majors---and we allowed the DL codeshare with CO and NW after our MEC approved it. As far as who the company wants to feed out DCI contracts with, that is up to the company, and even Comair lacked that type of language in their contract talks. Those guys forgot all about their own scope and went for the money. Then they blame national ALPA.

Skywest voluntarily went for growth, and allowed 50 seat rates on ANYTHING up to 99 seats. ALPA didn't have anything to do with that, so don't blame them. That started the ball rolling. Sad but true. And, don't blame us at Dalpa, we set the bar the highest it has ever been and then kept it there the longest. Our huge pay cut deal now isn't due to us necessarily, but over borrowing and the selling of the fuel hedges. We now have to go lower to try to stay around, but we did not sell out.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[rptrain]

Exactly what do you expect the union to do with regards to the low pay people are WILLING to work for?? Go to all the regional managements and decree "thou shalt not pay any less than $xxxxx for any pilot position"?? You know darn well that won't work in our capitalist society.

Uh, that's exactly what my CBA does, but I can't speak for yours. In the "Compensation" section it says "thou shalt not pay any less than $23.17/hr for any pilot position." Who'da thunkit, in our capitalist society?

I'll tell you what else it says: "thou shalt not have any other pilots before thine on the system seniority list." No IFs, ANDs, or BUTs. No codesharing, no block hour ratios, no arbitrary determinations based on weight or seating capacity. If it flies, we fly it. Therefore, I don't buy the argument that the union cannot defend against whipsawing. But it has to start from the top.

What puzzles me most is that you don't sound like much of a unionist with comments like, "I'm tired of seeing this typical lazy American sense of 'entitlement' coupled with 'its everybody else's fault but mine.'" If that's how you feel then why defend ALPA?

I believe in the union, but I also believe we can (and must) do better.

 

[Mel Sharples]

General Lee and JohnDoe:


When is the last time you heard a pilot at Delta or NWA say ALPA national wasn't representing their best interests?

'Nuff said.

John, the whole point of HAVING a national union is to pull in all of the LEC's. Otherwise, WHAT IS THE POINT??? ALPA national has the ability to tell people, "Look, run plays out of our playbook ONLY or go pound sand." Gee... funny they do that for majors but not for their regional BROTHERS. No matter what you say, it is supposed to be OUR union too. Funny Mr. Worth-less seems to have forgot that regional guys are also paying his $400,000 salary.

And John, your continued "let them eat cake" attitude was old last week. Go play in the "Majors" board. Obviously us little regional pukes here aren't cool enough to go there, as we are all the product of our own greed and stupidity.




.

 

[rptrain]

General,

As I said before, it's hindsight, and I'm not blaming anyone for not seeing it coming.

IMHO, you guys never should have allowed the creation of DCI with its "portfolio" of union and non-union carriers. The reason you let it happen is because that type of flying was considered "undesireable" and you didn't much care who took it. Unfortunately, ALPA never changed course from the old days (even you refer to your "commuter" days) when the codeshares were 19 and 29 seat airplanes operated under 135. 50-seat turbojet equipment still wasn't good enough to be considered "mainline." That, to this day, I find shocking.

You can't tell me DALPA has no control over who gets DCI flying. As much as it pains the RJDC to hear it, you guys are the Alpha of DAL flying. Your scope section specifically allows it, just like the NW/CO codeshare. The only difference is that DALPA doesn't care about setting standards for who flies DCI.

Now, instead of creating tighter restrictions on DCI flying (or, God forbid, even trying to get that flying back) you guys are having a fire sale. Granting more aircraft for DCI with no stipulations on who may fly them (other than jobs for furloughees). Without a change in philosophy, things are going to get much worse for everyone.

 

[Axel]

Who seemed to start this whole mess?

The reason you let it happen is because that type of flying was considered "undesireable" and you didn't much care who took it.

That about sums it up.

 

[General Lee]

Axel,


What? We didn't desire to fly routes from DFW to DCA, JFK, OAK, ONT, SNA, FLL, PBI, etc? We wanted to give up those routes? What are you smoking? The reason we had to give up those routes is because we were shifting airplanes around to try to combat Jetblue. We moved 36 mainline 757s to Song, and then had to move other airplanes to cover those replacements. The company, not ALPA, was short sighted and didn't get more aircraft to cover those routes. I couldn't believe they were throwing 70 seat RJs on those super long routes, and guess what? It failed. That wasn't ALPA's fault again.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Axel]

You have to go back to the origin

...to the time this crop was planted.

Mainlines didn't want anything that didn't have "Boeing," "Douglas," and later "Airbus" stamped on it.

Give the puddle jumpers to the little kids to fly, we don't want them. From the fertile ground sprang the so-called "regionals." Had the big kids wanted to play with the little kids' toys, they would all be on the mainline property and the scum sucking, bottom feeding, bar lowering b-scalers such as Comair, ASA, ALG, PDT, SKW, CHQ, etc, etc, WOULD NEVER HAVE EVEN EXISTED.

Yup, you big kids scored a major victory, there. Your stand on the segregation of real pilots from commuter pilots created the feeding frenzy (or whipsaw, the terms are interchangeable) that threatens everyone's way of life and sits like an anvil on the so-called bar. You have to go way back; way, way back- back to when Metroliners were still new and Jetstreams were not yet on the drawing board and follow the consistent refusal of the mainlines to allow little airplanes in.

Well there was a market and it should come as no surprise to anyone that companies sprang up who were willing to fill the need. This monster is of your creation and now it is out of your, and everyone on the labor side of the table's control. Now you lament the results: everyone, including the mainlines are fighting like starved jackals amongst each other and amongst themselves when the very work groups who are fighting with each other and with you are the product of your own disdain for the work you now covet.

This isn't about competition with Jet Blue, it's about reaping the fruits of segregationist mindsets that date back to before many of the JB pilots were even born. The foundation for today's airline world were laid back when commuters were emerging from the primordial ooze of navajos and cessna 402's. Had the mainlines had a little more forethought and a little less pride, none of this bitter harvest, NONE, would have ever had the chance to be conceived, much less harvested.