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.