Airtran Big Annoucement?

[islandhoper]

I'm definitely mentally ready for the strike. I tell the MEC boys everytime I see them...
What kind of other preparations you guys think we should do? (Financially and organizational?)

 

[ATLboeing]

More importantly, this could be management testing your negotiating resolve. Maybe they want you to ask to be released since you guys seem hundreds of miles away from doing it. S. Kolsky must be getting bored again.

Personally, I thought you guys would've petitioned the NMB to be released or have a TA by now. From the way it looks, neither are close. As we know all too well, those who fail to learn from History are doomed to repeat it.

While this move may not seem like a threat to some, it most certainly has the potential to become Midwest part 2 or something along the lines of Gojet. For those that still think that their beloved company would never do that to them, I've got some prime waterfront property for sale along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border! You interested??

Wake up boys, or wake your union leaders. This is more of a test to your resolve than a profitable venture. Nothing against the Skywest pilots, but this could be step one of many more, more daring steps this management could be getting ready for. These things usually start very subtle or with rosy promises of a big carrot.

You should now have a more friendly NMB, use it. Use it before you're left wondering what the hell just hit you. I'd assume that many Midwest pilots would probably have similar advice.

Hey, I've been to Pakistan & Afghanistan and you're full of ******************** man!
But I agree, they're testing our resolve big time. It's like one management group just hands the well worn playbook over to the next and says, "Here, it works." They drag it out, erode your current contract, degrade your quality of life (schedules & hotels), constantly distract you to keep your eye off the ball, and last but not least, threaten your job security somehow to make you revisit and see what you'll give up for scope. With regionals searching for new streams of revenue, this is just a new angle.
Hopefully this will wake some guys up to STOP picking up open time and doing favors for the company. We need to hit them in the wallet since it's the only thing they respond to at the table.

...and whoever talked me out of AA, thanks. I picked a hell of a week to stop drinking.

 

[Raskal]

Good luck, and for all the guys trying to move up, please don't let this happen without a fight...

 

[scarlet]

and the swine flu is going around....hopefully the seats in the cockpits get replaced with new ones. hopefully the coach seats get replaced with ones that does not show metal. (customers love our seats) Go sit in 11F on most 717s, nothing stopping you.

Alot of placards are missing or can't hardly read.

TAKE PICTURES !!!

 

[ATLboeing]

and the swine flu is going around....hopefully the seats in the cockpits get replaced with new ones. hopefully the coach seats get replaced with ones that does not show metal. (customers love our seats) Go sit in 11F on most 717s, nothing stopping you.

Alot of placards are missing or can't hardly read.

TAKE PICTURES !!!

And for some reason, they're more noticeable at the outstations

 

[V1rowt8]

Somebody please explain to me how this is not a CBA violation since I believe there is scope language to prohibit this? If there is, then can't the pilot group be released to and or begin self help soon?

 

[Lear70]

Well, for starters, the CBA DOES allow them the use of 50 seat RJ's in certain levels of ASM's, so no, it's NOT a violation of the CBA.

However, management doesn't see it that way. They don't see this move as a "COVERED ITEM" on the CBA. Meaning, because they've labeled it a "partnership", it's no longer a "code share" and therefore whatever they do is EXEMPT from any restrictions from within the CBA.

This causes two problems. First, there is no legal response we can make to it as it does not violate Section 1 of the Contract, by any definition, so we can't really grieve their interpretation if it does not, indeed, violate anything. Secondly, by not challenging that "interpretation" and labeling this flying, when they DO violate it in the future, they will argue previous precedent that we didn't challenge it before, so why are we concerned now?

Does the airline really intend to pull a Midwest here? I don't THINK so, but they're probing on so many different levels, it's hard to tell what's really their intent and what's not.

I have my personal ideas, but they're just speculation, like everyone else...

 

[Colonel Savage]

How about demanding a LOA with the Company stating no more than 50 seats applies to any lift agreement of any kind with third party carriers?

 

[Lear70]

Demand with what leverage?

 

[Colonel Savage]

Good question. I didn't think politely asking for the LOA would work, but I just wanted to put the idea out there. The particulars would be up to the ALPA braintrust.