Alaska 110M Profit

[jayme]

The way I understand it, though, is that there is no restriction on the number nor size of the outsourced aircraft. Don't you worry that as you become more expensive, that management will simply replace you with a cheaper option?

 

[CesnaCaptn]

Cheaper option? There's a lot more to the cost of a seat mile than the hourly rate of a pilot. CASMs on regional jets are much higher. Aren't they almost double (ex-fuel)? Using your logic, we should accept $120/hour. Then we should expect exponential growth like VX.

Load factors are already running 87%+. Mrs. Internet CEO, where do you suggest AAG put these large RJs?

 

[Chief Pilot]

The way I understand it, though, is that there is no restriction on the number nor size of the outsourced aircraft. Don't you worry that as you become more expensive, that management will simply replace you with a cheaper option?

Our problem is that we don't have scope that ties the mainline flying to AAG, just Alaska Airlines. Theoretically AAG could buy Virgin (probably make you pretty happy Jayme) paint a female eskimo on the tail and call it Alaska Air Express, or Alaskan or some other thing and replace us all over time. It's possible, but unlikely--although I'm not one to bet the farm on the word or "good intentions" of a likeable CEO. I agree with CesnaCaptn that a bunch of big RJ won't actually be cheaper, even if the workforce is paid less. We need to move closer to solid scope this time around that ties mainline flying to AAG. Thanks for your input, though Jayme. I know you have nothing but the best of intentions and well wishes for the pilots of Alaska Airlines.

CP

 

[jayme]

I guess you guys think I have ulterior motives? I'm just labor, like you. The competition is between our CEOs, not you and I.

But since you bring it up, sure, right now I'd be happy to be stapled to the bottom of your list.

 

[Snapshot]

coughing up scope to get it. I won't vote for it if it does.

You can't cough up something you don't even have.
Does Skywest pilots flying Air Group equipment on Air Group Routes make you feel like you've got scope?

Scope what scope ?? We don't have any..

Ya Beat me to it. It's amazing how many people have no idea what "operational control" means.

Our problem is that we don't have scope that ties the mainline flying to AAG, just Alaska Airlines.

You think you have that, even? Didn't you used to fly to Long Beach and Reno? Who does that now?

 

[Bake]

I will give you Alaska guys this. I just flew on you first class from anchorage to dallas with a stopover. It was wonderful. Great flight attendants, great seats and a wonderful product. Almost on time. Really, I enjoyed it. I thought you guys did a great job.

 

[Ocity]

The only mention of scope we have is very loose and it simply states that Alaska Pilots will fly all aircraft under operational control of the company. Which is to say, there basically is no real scope. If the company wants a fleet of big RJ's we need to make sure that there is real, defined, mainline growth permanently attached to every single RJ they want. The Airline is making record profits with 737's and the industry trend is to move to larger AC. I honestly don't the company flying LAX/SEA or up to ANC from the 48 in RJ's. Ever.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

Many senior guys don't seem to care about scope since they'll stay in the same seat if they furlough half of us for RJs.

"Show me the money. Screw you, sonny!"

 

[Mookie]

Many senior guys don't seem to care about scope since they'll stay in the same seat if they furlough half of us for RJs.

"Show me the money. Screw you, sonny!"

Bingo....
(the same guys bitched about the $50 furloughed pilot health care assessment)

Mookie

 

[Boxboy]

Alaska has always been about brand and service. RJs don't offer that sort of "service" (ie. no first class nor the range and comfort). As long as we stay one type aircraft, scope means didly IMHO. So all you hard core scope guys/gals, how much are you willing to give up $wise to get a strong scope language? BTW, I'm pretty junior.

 

[rjfo]

Alaska has always been about brand and service. RJs don't offer that sort of "service" (ie. no first class nor the range and comfort). As long as we stay one type aircraft, scope means didly IMHO. So all you hard core scope guys/gals, how much are you willing to give up $wise to get a strong scope language? BTW, I'm pretty junior.

Are you talking about the same Alaska that I see in sea, PDX, sjc, lax, boi, oak, and bur? I'm pretty sure they have a couple q400s already flying for them.

 

[Chief Pilot]

Alaska has always been about brand and service. RJs don't offer that sort of "service" (ie. no first class nor the range and comfort). As long as we stay one type aircraft, scope means didly IMHO. So all you hard core scope guys/gals, how much are you willing to give up $wise to get a strong scope language? BTW, I'm pretty junior.

I highly doubt we will get the "Ironclad" scope that we would all love to see during this go around, but we need to make some real improvements to the current language. Make no mistake--the pilots at Alaska are simply a cost to be managed, no matter how much progress has been made to improve management/pilot relations over the past couple years. We are not people with families, we are numbers on a balance sheet and if you want to bury your head in the sand a trust that management will always do what they say, then you deserve the eventual layoff.

It should not cost us a thing to get in writing what senior management is more that happy to verbally tell you in any company sanctioned meeting. They have said, many times over, that they do not intend to outsource our jobs, and want to continue to grow the mainline side. If that is the case, then write it down and tie it to AAG because they are the ones that pull the strings on CPA's.

It should not cost us anything as we've seen record profits in recent years with record operational efficiencies. It's time to stop thinking we have to give up something to get something.

CP.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

As long as we stay one type aircraft, scope means didly IMHO.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/010/692/19789999.jpg

 

[igneousy2]

Alaska has always been about brand and service. RJs don't offer that sort of "service" (ie. no first class nor the range and comfort). As long as we stay one type aircraft, scope means didly IMHO. So all you hard core scope guys/gals, how much are you willing to give up $wise to get a strong scope language? BTW, I'm pretty junior.

You obviously don't get out much so I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are sincere and get you up to speed.

1. Alaska Air Group ALREADY operates 3 aircraft types...all of them have eskimos on the tail, say Alaska Airlines on the side, and have Alaska Airlines flight numbers. To our passengers, there is no difference.

2. There are already RJ's with First Class service. If Alaska Air Group decided to put First Class Seats in, we would not be the first.

3. In any case, the "type" of aircraft or the level of discomfort of the airplanes the company desires to put their passengers in is not a protection against outsourcing that you make it seem to be. In fact, there is nothing in our contract to stop the company from creating another 737 operator within Alaska Air Group. There is nothing that prevents the company from "selling" our jets from Alaska Airlines to Alaska Airlines 2.

I am making a prediction about the combi. The company will announce that they will be selling the combis/freighters to NCA (or similar) and they will be operated as a code share. Horizon (or some other regional) will take over flying our South-east schedule except it will go from point to point to a hub-spoke. They will turn Juneau into a quasi-hub with Alaska (mainline) flying to Seattle and Horizon serving the Ketchikans, Sitkas, etc. out of Juneau. Alaska mainline will also continue flying ANC-SEA, ANC-LAX, ANC-DEN, FAI-SEA, ANC-HNL, etc.. Arctic flying will be continued as normal...except they will be flown by NAC crews on the NAC certificate, on 737-combis with eskimos on their tails. I am futher predicting that this announcement will take place about 3-6 months after the completion of our contract which should be by April of 2013, so let's say combi's gone announcement by 2014. I really hope i'm wrong. I sure wish our contract prevented this scenario.

How much am I willing to give up in money...a-lot. There is a reason that Scope is section 2 of the contract behind only "definitions" it is the most important. If you don't protect your flying, it is irrelevant what the rest of the contract says.

 

[AK737FO]

igneously2,
You have some interesting ideas. Some of them may come to fruition. A few other things to think about / possible directions at the Y's in the road.

The 400's will start leaving the property in 2014 and gone by 2016. What ever the company is going to do for Alaska state flying has to be set in place by then. Last spring at FlightPath, I asked BT what the plan was for Alaska State flying. He said, point blank, no carpet dance - we are gong to START with 5 or 6 Q400's in ANC. We have to get the right sized equipment on the right sized market...etc, etc. He then went on to say that they are looking at 2 to 3 freighters. Translation = combi's gone, Q400's fly a lot of the Arctic and 2 or 3 freighters are on a daily milk run to haul what the turbo props can't.

GB has been saying for well over a year that they have looked at running Southeast with the Q400's and that it just does not work. They can only do .30 RNP and the company is not willing to accept that. My reply was that .30 RNP is still light years ahead of what we use to do in the 200's, but Gary said that in todays world it was not acceptable.

So my prediction is that Q400's will be in ANC by next summer (13), cutting their teeth side my side with us on the Arctic for about two years before our 400 fleet is gone. Southeast will stay predominately jets. The ANC base will shrink for jet pilots and grow for turbo prop pilots. The displaced ANC jet pilots will be assimilated into other bases as I believe the have no intentions of shrinking the mainline. Our aircraft orders back up what management has been saying.

The playing field is changing though. We are moving farther and farther away from being the little home town airline that flys the bush and does the hard stuff that nobody else wants to do. We are getting virtually nothing but 900 ER's over the next few years. Big high speed aluminum tubes designed to go a long ways in a straight line with lots of folks - not exactly what you want or need in KTN, WRG, PSG, JNU, SIT, YAK, CDV, ADQ, ADK, BET, AKN, DLI, OTZ, OME, SCC, RDD, or BRW.

 

[Boxboy]

You obviously don't get out much so I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are sincere and get you up to speed.

1. Alaska Air Group ALREADY operates 3 aircraft types...all of them have eskimos on the tail, say Alaska Airlines on the side, and have Alaska Airlines flight numbers. To our passengers, there is no difference.

2. There are already RJ's with First Class service. If Alaska Air Group decided to put First Class Seats in, we would not be the first.

3. In any case, the "type" of aircraft or the level of discomfort of the airplanes the company desires to put their passengers in is not a protection against outsourcing that you make it seem to be. In fact, there is nothing in our contract to stop the company from creating another 737 operator within Alaska Air Group. There is nothing that prevents the company from "selling" our jets from Alaska Airlines to Alaska Airlines 2.

I am making a prediction about the combi. The company will announce that they will be selling the combis/freighters to NCA (or similar) and they will be operated as a code share. Horizon (or some other regional) will take over flying our South-east schedule except it will go from point to point to a hub-spoke. They will turn Juneau into a quasi-hub with Alaska (mainline) flying to Seattle and Horizon serving the Ketchikans, Sitkas, etc. out of Juneau. Alaska mainline will also continue flying ANC-SEA, ANC-LAX, ANC-DEN, FAI-SEA, ANC-HNL, etc.. Arctic flying will be continued as normal...except they will be flown by NAC crews on the NAC certificate, on 737-combis with eskimos on their tails. I am futher predicting that this announcement will take place about 3-6 months after the completion of our contract which should be by April of 2013, so let's say combi's gone announcement by 2014. I really hope i'm wrong. I sure wish our contract prevented this scenario.

How much am I willing to give up in money...a-lot. There is a reason that Scope is section 2 of the contract behind only "definitions" it is the most important. If you don't protect your flying, it is irrelevant what the rest of the contract says.

If you are correct, we have a very ignorant union/pilot group since we've been around for 75+ years worth of contract negotiations and the scope thingy hasn't been fixed yet. Hmmmmmmm??? What does it matter anyway.....12-21-12 will end it all!

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

Boxboy, just out of curiosity, do you or will you have a military retirement? Some of our pilots that didn't spend time at the regionals have different appreciation for scope.

I'm not sure, but I don't think we've had contracts for 75+ years, and scope didn't become an issue until the RJ explosion.

 

[Boxboy]

Boxboy, just out of curiosity, do you or will you have a military retirement? Some of our pilots that didn't spend time at the regionals have different appreciation for scope.

I'm not sure, but I don't think we've had contracts for 75+ years, and scope didn't become an issue until the RJ explosion.

Ok, I'll bite. RJ explosion... so what happened with our last POS contract? 80%+ of our pilots voted it in. Did you vote yes? I sure hell didn't! Was the "RJ explosion" not around back then? Seems like scope wasn't so important then, huh. So all of a sudden, the boys and girls north of LAX are pretty happy flying to Hawaii and JUST NOW realize that they want more job security as long as they can live in the NW. A little self righteous and selfish, don't you think??? Dude, scope (or lack thereof) has never been hashed out, why? Let's ask our reps; they'll tell you and you won't like what you hear.
You are right, we didn't have contracts for the entire 75+ year, only since we joined ALPA.
As for retirement, you can thank the "yes" voters of our pilot group, once again for selling out the new guys. Don't underestimate us mil guys; we get it! btw, yes I will have a mil retirement-every penny of it paid for in blood and sweat!

 

[Chief Pilot]

If you are correct, we have a very ignorant union/pilot group since we've been around for 75+ years worth of contract negotiations and the scope thingy hasn't been fixed yet. Hmmmmmmm??? What does it matter anyway.....12-21-12 will end it all!

BoxBoy,

Presumably you are an Alaska Pilot, so I am just going to recommend that you educate yourself about this "scope thingy" and think about what you want to say before you put it down for all the world to see. Scope IS a big deal and should be on the forefront of the improvements that the NC works on. In past years we were limited by binding arbitration to resolve any differences. Now we are not. Please tell me that after all your hard work getting to this point in your career, you are not willing to just give it up to another pilot on another air carrier's seniority list.

 

[Boxboy]

BoxBoy,

Presumably you are an Alaska Pilot, so I am just going to recommend that you educate yourself about this "scope thingy" and think about what you want to say before you put it down on for all the world to see. Scope IS a big deal and should be on the forefront of the improvements that the NC works on. In past years we were limited by binding arbitration to resolve any differences. Now we are not. Please tell me that after all your hard work getting to this point in your career, you are not willing to just give it up to another pilot on another air carrier's seniority list.

I know enough about scope, thank you. Binding arbitration (Kasher) was one contract before the current contract so I'd suggest you educate yourself before opening your pie hole. Oh btw, the contracts before Kasher were NOT under binding arbitration, if you know anything about Alaska Airlines! 2005 was one and only "binding arbitration" we had and that we will have unless the union dicks up again; you should educate yourself about how we ended up with getting this "one-time" binding arbitration in our contract; it was self inflicted. I don't have the energy to explain it to you but I'm sure one of our reps will gladly do so; just don't ask one of the spin doctors. I also remember that scope was one of the 4 cornerstones and 80%+ of you voted in the current contract, you know, the one with zero scope.
When I said that I was junior, I meant relative seniority. I've been around the block a few times. You will soon be jerking gear for me.