Air Wisconsin, we hardly knew ye

[On Your Six]

I agree with the General. Don't blame the DAL pilots for allowing CR7s to fly between DFW and SNA or DCA - there was no choice because of the shift of aircraft for Song. It's too easy to blame the DAL mainliners for doing this or doing that - but in reality Dalpa has been reactionary since 9/11 because of the reallocation of resources and furlough situation.

Unfortunately, Delta HAD to consider non-union and cheaper lift after 9/11 because of both the deteriorating economic environment AND the emergence of the LCCs. Delta has been sliding downward since 9/11 and Dalpa has not had much control as a result... It's too easy to blame the Delta mainliners for everything...

 

[Axel]

And it's not just Delta

Don't blame the DAL pilots for allowing CR7s to fly between DFW and SNA or DCA...

...Unfortunately, Delta HAD to consider non-union and cheaper lift after 9/11 because of both the deteriorating economic environment AND the emergence of the LCCs. Delta has been sliding downward since 9/11 and Dalpa has not had much control as a result... It's too easy to blame the Delta mainliners for everything...

It's not 9/11 either. The cheaper non-union lift would not have existed had the CR7's been mainline aircraft flown by mainline crews. That fact pre-dates 9/11 by 20 years and was most certainly under the control of DALPA at the time.

 

[HawkI]

While the race to the bottom argument can go on forever....

I think the major issue here is, the artificial leverage to supply and demand that the bancruptcy court has over venders. AWAC made a commitment to fly for United voluntarily with a long term, bancruptcy court approved, contract. Now the court is going to allow them to reneg. That is fine...but what if AWAC said "Screw You!!" and parked every airplane tommorro. There would be a court ordered injunction forcing us to fly.....at least until our competitors can replace us. Management can't negotiate with Big U when their in bancrupcy. So much for CAPITAISM.

$hit or get off the pot!! Exit bancrupcy or chapter 7!!

 

[JohnDoe]

quote from rptrain:
"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?"

What I was referring to is this attitude being displayed that Alpa can stop the whipsaw by preventing the "underbidders" out there from "underbidding" other people's contracts. The only way for that to happen is for them to say to EVERYBODY involved that this is the "floor" for compensation, or to establish the same rates for everybody. That is what won't work. How else will the perceived "whipsaw" between regionals be prevented? Yes, yes, you and everybody else out there obviously have your own contract, but it appears that that is the problem. Certain groups have their own contract that pays less than others involved. To think that Alpa can come out and demand that everybody has the same level to prevent the whipsawing is absurd.

quote:
"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'm not defending Alpa as much as I am calling out statements or attitudes I have a problem with. Especially this notion that a decision by United management to put some of their feeder service out for a bid and reduce their cost is the fault of Alpa. That makes no sense to me.


quote from Mel:
"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."

I see.....so because you don't like my point of view I should just "go away" eh?? I expected more from you than some cop-out like that.



Rptrain, why exactly do you (and others) feel it is Alpa's fault that United management decided to put a bid out for their flying?? If it is this perceived "whipsaw", then exactly how is it to be stopped?? How can Alpa say that one alpa represented regional can or can't do certain flying vs another alpa represented regional. Lets get some specific resolutions as to what can be done here.......I see alot of talk about what happened in the past, lets see these brilliant solutions.

And none of this mainline vs regional. This specific case is one regional potentialy losing their flying to another regional doing it for less.

 

[JohnDoe]

quote:
"$hit or get off the pot!! Exit bancrupcy or chapter 7!!"


I definately agree with that one......

 

[SSDD]

I just heard from a friend that Air Wisconsin does not have an actual, post-bankruptcy contract with UA. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

 

[IADBLRJ41]

My 2 Cents...

I am an AWAC FO on the CRJ in ORD. My understanding is that AWAC had a MOU (memo of understanding) with United for RJ flying. All the other carriers had an actual "affirmed" contract. I personally believe this is UAL's way to get rid of expensive 50 seat RJ's for 70+ seaters. United is getting rid of 737's and need to replace these airplanes with RJ's. The cost of 70 seater or larger per seat mile makes more sense than continuing to provide feed with AWAC's 50 seaters.

Since AWAC had a MOU with United there is no legal contact to save the 70 CRJ's that are being flown. I believe our owners in Appleton might have been playing hard ball by not agreeing to this risky terms that the other regionals bowed down to, and taking on additional flying by obtaining a new fleet or aircraft model.

I just think this really sucks that concessions that were taken over a year ago are once again being looked at for future discussion. The thought that Whiskey is that much higher cost I really do not buy. Afterall, we do operate at some of the highest cost hubs/airports in United's system. I challenge other regionals to deal with IAD's delays and landing fees at ORD day in and out and keep costs inline with other carriers.

Crossing my fingers.

 

[Mel Sharples]

quote from Mel:
"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."

I see.....so because you don't like my point of view I should just "go away" eh?? I expected more from you than some cop-out like that.

It's not a cop-out, it's just that your only argument seems to be "suck it up." We are saying why we are pi$$ed and why we don't think ALPA, OUR union, is representing us fairly. No one in their right mind would say that they can fairly represent majors and regionals, and I know you agree with that statement.

Every time we present an argument, you say things like, "I'm tired of seeing this typical lazy American sense of "entitlement" coupled with "its everybody else's fault but mine". I'm sorry you don't like the concepts of how unions work, but that is reality.

The reason I told you to back to the Majors board is that you have no solutions. You just keep saying it is not ALPA's fault. That is why your argument is like the famous Marie Antoinette quote, "Let them eat cake." Like her, your argument is that we should all jam it because that is life and why don't we just understand.

I say again, for the umpteenth time, ALPA is OUR union as well as yours. ALPA has been preaching brand scope to us, and not vice versa.

What I was referring to is this attitude being displayed that Alpa can stop the whipsaw by preventing the "underbidders" out there from "underbidding" other people's contracts. The only way for that to happen is for them to say to EVERYBODY involved that this is the "floor" for compensation, or to establish the same rates for everybody.

THAT IS THE POINT! If ALPA says they are going to stop whipsawing, then they have to bring in the local LEC's. When we almost went on strike, Pinnacle said they would not fly struck work. Could they have? Legally, sure. No one could stop them. But ALPA NATIONAL can make the mandate not to do it. ALPA NATIONAL can dictate what the limits will be. If local LEC's choose not to agree, they can be booted out.

Now are you starting to see? YOU keep ignoring what I am asking you. I ask you "Why can't ALPA national enforce the mandates that THEY ARE PROPOSING AND SUPPORTING?"

I have asked you time and time again, so if you don't answer then you might as well go back to the majors board. It's not that I don't like your reply, it is just rediculous. I ask you, John: I pay dues to ALPA, as does my pilot group. So why don't I have a right to question why MY union does not support ME or MY PILOT GROUP who are paying THEIR SALARIES?

I have asked you that several times and your reply has always been some overall nonesense like, "I'm tired of seeing this typical lazy American sense of "entitlement". If that's the case, good for you. Then lets get rid of all unions and we can all get our own deserved share.

You say you support ALPA but when it comes to supporting ALL ALPA's members, you don't agree. Why is that, John? Maybe because you are at the top of the heap and you aren't feeling the affects of lack of representation? It's a lot easier to tell people to quit complaining and suck it up when you aren't living just above the food stamp level. Maybe we should all just get off of our collective @sses and get jobs with a major airline, because we all know how easy that is.

And you wonder why no one wants to hear your opinion. It has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with you. That is what these boards are for. But I am not going to listen to rediculous notions like I don't have the right to tell my union how to represent me.

If you don't understand what I posted, then don't bother replying. I don't need to here another "entitlement" argument. We pay for ALPA representation. If they don't give it to us, we have a right to complain and THAT is what unions are all about.



.

 

[Pukindog]

Heard from someone in Appleton that the biggest threat does not even come from Mesa or Chq... they're saying that this bid is a poor one from United, it's something like a 5 year 70 airplane contract, so it's a good risk for any carrier to buy/lease 70 airplanes just for a 5 years commitment.

They said that Indy would be biggest threat for the bid because they have the RJs ready to go and are at a pretty desperate point right now, they might just do whatever is needed to go back to something that provides them with stable money.

Good luck to the pilot group at whiskey.

 

[WhiteCloud]

AWAC made a commitment to fly for United voluntarily with a long term, bancruptcy court approved, contract. Now the court is going to allow them to reneg. That is fine...but what if AWAC said "Screw You!!" and parked every airplane tommorro. There would be a court ordered injunction forcing us to fly.....at least until our competitors can replace us.

I'd love to see some court try to enforce an injuction like that. Too many things can legally cause a disruption in service.