Alaska 110M Profit

[Chief Pilot]

Ok,

Just so I'm clear--from your previous posts (and I'm paraphrasing), because we made mistakes in the past as a pilot group and let our scope language go for so long, we just should ignore it now and do nothing? It won't be a factor because we are a service based airline with a single fleet type? I mean no disrespect here, but this is basically how I read what you are writing. Just show me the money and forget about scope.

During our last contract I was screaming about scope, but it did not seem to be a priority. I feel like we are in a better bargaining position now than we were then. Management doesn't have the worsening economy to fall back on and scare us with--now it's encroaching competition from LCC's, as if that's ever a non-factor. Also, they want a quick contract just as much (if not more) than we do.

Sorry Boxboy if I offended you in my previous posts. I feel strongly about improving job security for not just myself, but all pilots at Alaska Airlines. We are on the same team after all.

CP

 

[Boxboy]

Ok,

Just so I'm clear--from your previous posts (and I'm paraphrasing), because we made mistakes in the past as a pilot group and let our scope language go for so long, we just should ignore it now and do nothing? It won't be a factor because we are a service based airline with a single fleet type? I mean no disrespect here, but this is basically how I read what you are writing. Just show me the money and forget about scope.

During our last contract I was screaming about scope, but it did not seem to be a priority. I feel like we are in a better bargaining position now than we were then. Management doesn't have the worsening economy to fall back on and scare us with--now it's encroaching competition from LCC's, as if that's ever a non-factor. Also, they want a quick contract just as much (if not more) than we do.

Sorry Boxboy if I offended you in my previous posts. I feel strongly about improving job security for not just myself, but all pilots at Alaska Airlines. We are on the same team after all.

CP

Hey, no need for apologies here. I'm pretty thick skinned and like to have a little fun on these forums. I know I get a little sarcastic at times and I hope I too didn't offend some of you too much. The military had some effect on me in that department.
I know where you are coming from regarding scope. It might have been you or someone else who mentioned the fact that BT and GB always says that they support our job security. If so, then they should put it in writing. It should not have to cost us anything; don't let them have you think otherwise. All I'm saying is that I for one will not give up ANYTHING, period. They said so, then put it in writing! We already lost most of the the good work rules already with Kasher, not just $$$!!! Enough is enough.
Unfortunately, too many people are short sighted and selfish. Pilots are inherently selfish; can you say seniority? The senior ones don't want to lose what they've worked for and the junior ones want job security and to climb the seniority list. Management always plays us by pinning us against one another and this pilot group has always failed through the same tactics. Unity is what will save us. The company approach... business mindset, our union/pilots...with emotion. In the end, they always wear us out because we are out gunned and out witted. Hopefully, we've learned our lesson.
One suggestion... when we get our next TA, I hope that everyone studies it thoroughly and not just listen to our NC's recommendations. I read our last TA over 8 times and took notes. Let's use our God given intelligence and think for ourselves and ask those tough questions. It is after all, our livelihood until the next contract.

 

[Dash8don]

I would like to add some other thoughts about scope. It's not just RJ's we need to be worried about with regards to scope. We need to look to the future. Don't you think AAG may someday look towards more international flying? Asia is the largest and fastest growing economy in the world. Our west coast hubs would make excellent gateway's to Asia. What's to stop the company from ordering 787's and starting "Alaska Pacific Airlines"? No cross training airplane types, they get to set the employment terms, plenty of pilots lining up to fly a shiny new 787's and not a darn thing we can do about it! Secondly, as I read the latest book that was sent to my doorstep, it has made me think how many times this airline has re-invented itself to survive. With all the competition from LCC's, Virgin, Southwest, Allegiant, Spirit, and the likes, what if suddenly AAG decides to start Alaska "Lite"? At the moment I think we are safe from this kind of move, but if management starts to feel cornered, or they think they could realize larger cost savings, suddenly our contract isn't worth the paper it's written on. Might as well ask for $1,000,000/hr because it's not going to matter. Ask a Midwest pilot how well that worked out for them. I've deadheaded on an Alaska Skywest RJ. Same blue seat, same buy on board products, friendly crew and everything was marketed as Alaska. Passengers don't know the difference and as long as they get their cheap tickets, probably don't care. I think our current management team is doing a great job running a profitable company, and I think they are attempting to balance the needs of employee's with their responsibility to shareholders. However, don't kid yourself, there is a reason they won't sign on the dotted line with regards to scope. Think of it like insurance. Things change and we need that coverage.

On another note, I'm hearing rumors in the puzzle palace of the company getting an STC for -700 freighters and combi's. I suppose we'll hear something soon.

 

[Green Banana]

On another note, I'm hearing rumors in the puzzle palace of the company getting an STC for -700 freighters and combi's. I suppose we'll hear something soon.

The last that I got is that a few of the 700's will be turned into frighters, ala, 400 style. The FAA said NO to the 700 Combi.

 

[Old School 737]

The last that I got is that a few of the 700's will be turned into frighters, ala, 400 style. The FAA said NO to the 700 Combi.

I don't think the feds could say no if it was done with all the STC/mods done correctly .. they may make it hard and a lot of hoops to go through but... Have you seen the National Airlines 757 combi that is about to be approved !!

 

[igneousy2]

The feds won't approve a combi with a movable partition which has caused a lot of problems with the 400-C...so I think the company doesn't want to make that mistake again. I think a couple of freighters (700 or 800) with straight-passenger service on other flights thrown in, is the way the company is going to go.

 

[Dash8don]

The feds won't approve a combi with a movable partition which has caused a lot of problems with the 400-C...so I think the company doesn't want to make that mistake again. I think a couple of freighters (700 or 800) with straight-passenger service on other flights thrown in, is the way the company is going to go.

...or a couple of Q400's thrown in!

 

[AK737FO]

You guys are missing the big picture by just a smidge. The pieces are all there, we just have to put them together.
The 700 QC (quick change), currently flown by the Navy, is not certified for civilian use. The market is to small for Boeing to pay for it. That certification process makes it to expensive for us to pay for it. Therefore, we will not be getting a 700 QC - ever.
Now a combi? That is a different story. The FAA can't stop it, but they may not make it easy either. The main thing that the FAA hates is a moveable smoke barrier as in the QC. A fixed wall / smoke barrier as in a combi is something they are more comfy with. A straight freighter they are happy with because at most you will only kill two pilots and maybe a handfull of people on the ground.
So, BT has publicly stated that they will start with 5 or more Horizon Q400's in ANC to do some of the flying in State. The time line has not been publicaly stated, but the 737-400 fleet, and most important 737-400 combi / freighter fleet, is scheduled to be retired no later than 2016. So there is your time line.
The Q400 can not run around the State, full of pax plus 3 bags per pax. This brings up the concept of a Q400 combi? But lets not go there now... So if a big chunk of the Arctic is being flown by a turbo prop that can't haul all the bags and freight, then it makes sense to have a couple of 737-700's running around the State on a daily freight run.
I believe this is part of the reason they painted Eskimo's on the Q400's. Soon they will be running around in State, so it had to "look" the same.
I think there will be a Horizon base in ANC by next summer. They will need a couple of years to work the bugs out before we hand it all over to them. The Horizon ANC base will grow. The Alaska ANC base will shrink. The Alaska pilots will find themselves in SEA or PDX flying ETOPS. The Horizon pilots will find themselves in OTZ trying to re-learn how to land on the 500 foot mark firmly, not the 1500 mark - looking for a greaser on that unbearably stiff Q400 gear.

 

[charlieB]

I'm curious why the MEC has expressed their goal of signing a new contract by the amendable date. I don't recall timeline as a priority in the past. Is this a 5th cornerstone? I hope it's just pre-negotiation feel-good posturing and not something more sinister driving ALPA's sense of urgency: 1) ALPA national's economist sees a storm coming, 2) we might end up on some mega-carrier's plate

 

[CesnaCaptn]

I'm curious why the MEC has expressed their goal of signing a new contract by the amendable date. I don't recall timeline as a priority in the past. Is this a 5th cornerstone? I hope it's just pre-negotiation feel-good posturing and not something more sinister driving ALPA's sense of urgency: 1) ALPA national's economist sees a storm coming, 2) we might end up on some mega-carrier's plate

Having flown with someone on the NC recently, I didn't sense an ulterior motive. Basically, the union and the company can both benefit from getting a contract done "on-time."