Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

AirTran Question

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Calm down Wood Pecker.... This is the same thing that happend in the last contract. Try to push through a bunch of crap and then get a contract this is decent.... We will get a decent contract....Well, unless a bunch of your pilots cave and then we only have ourselves to blame..

i hope you are correct....
 
Night is here and so is beer. I am calmer now but after the bus ride to the parking lot today there are pilots(only 2 but still) that are going to vote yes b/c they fear longer negotiations/arbitration and they want their bonus plus raise despite the contract. The reason is they are not on reserve as they are captains holding lines and they have real estate income. Sort of like the new revision about checking the exterior doors, the attitude is that is the FOs problem now back to adding my captain bonus.
 
Night is here and so is beer. I am calmer now but after the bus ride to the parking lot today there are pilots(only 2 but still) that are going to vote yes b/c they fear longer negotiations/arbitration and they want their bonus plus raise despite the contract. The reason is they are not on reserve as they are captains holding lines and they have real estate income. Sort of like the new revision about checking the exterior doors, the attitude is that is the FOs problem now back to adding my captain bonus.

well FO's constitute around half of the pilot group so there's 50% no votes, only need some CA no votes. but i'm sure some fo's will buy the midwest whipsaw argument (dummies).
 
well FO's constitute around half of the pilot group so there's 50% no votes, only need some CA no votes. but i'm sure some fo's will buy the midwest whipsaw argument (dummies).

We are going to get whipsawed anyways with this crap TA. This TA is with airtran airlines not airtran holding. Guess what, AT airlines is not buying MDX, AT holding is. So we get whipsawed anyway. Vote it down.:angryfire
 
We are going to get whipsawed anyways with this crap TA. This TA is with airtran airlines not airtran holding. Guess what, AT airlines is not buying MDX, AT holding is. So we get whipsawed anyway. Vote it down.:angryfire

the shell game continues......

let them try, single carrier petition will fix that crap. if we had more balls and patience at mesa it would have fixed our problems too, but no impatience won and we signed a crappy contract.
 
You guys ever heard of Gojets and Trans States? Well their scope was not tied to the holding company and Hulas was able to whipsaw the Trans States pilots thus, not giving them the 70 seat flying that initially belonged to them. The arbitrator ruled against the TSA MEC since scope was not tied to the holding company therefore GJ was legal in the eyes of the law. They are still flying today with off the street captains in lots of cases. Gojets was hiring while Trans States was furloughing! How you like them apples?

Do you think this could happen at AirTran or any other company for that matter? My bet is that yes it could if pilots and MECs allow it. It's cheaper and it's profitable. Let's keep in mind that a CEO's job is to make money. How he or she does it in the end, is of little consequence to himself and his stockholders. With the exception of a few select companies, this is the law of the land in boardrooms. It's up to us to not let these bad things happen and to negotiate a good wage for ourselves.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top