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

Alaska contract

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
How does the "tax deferred savings plan" that replaced the pension work when the IRS lowers the contribution rate to 6.5% and caps the total at 8.5% as they are maneuvering to do right now. Does the contract contain an alternate method to maintain the same dollar figure
 
Since most FO's have no pension, what "total package" would they be comparing. Are they not on the same program as the big 4....time for them to mutiny, cut the captains loose and take what is rightfully their's
 
This isn't an Alaska Contract. It's a Skywest Contract.
Make no mistake. This gives away the store and they've got the planes all fired up and ready to go.

I talked to a friend at SkyWest and says that they got some CRJ-900's they were sub-leasing to a Vietnam airline that are coming back. SkyWest is in talks with Alaska to fly those 900's.

Scope please !
 
CRJ-900, EMB-175, Mitsubishi whatever.

They've got HUNDREDS of Scope Busting airframes in the pipe and their foot in the door. More airframes than YOU have. Think about it.

Storm clouds are gathering, will you be smart enough to open your umbrella?

The scope language should say "No business with Skywest".
 
Last edited:
Anybody else having a hard time getting it to down load into iBook or good reader ... Is it 2 big ? The new ALPA server is asking for creds? I already put them in before? And the password doesn't work now ?. ALPA dam you!
 
Last edited:
CRJ-900, EMB-175, Mitsubishi whatever.

They've got HUNDREDS of Scope Busting airframes in the pipe and their foot in the door. More airframes than YOU have. Think about it.

Storm clouds are gathering, will you be smart enough to open your umbrella?

The scope language should say "No business with Skywest".

Well we need specific seat / airplane size requirements ... Not just this or that company .. Cause next week xto enterprise airlines will start up and...
 
Well we need specific seat / airplane size requirements ... Not just this or that company .. Cause next week xto enterprise airlines will start up and...
Of course. I'm just trying to get the point across that the deal is already done with Skywest. Ink is dry.
The second a contract that doesn't stop it is signed, they will take all of your flying.

If they want RJ's. Fine. They can pay YOU to drive them.
 
Of course. I'm just trying to get the point across that the deal is already done with Skywest. Ink is dry.
The second a contract that doesn't stop it is signed, they will take all of your flying.

If they want RJ's. Fine. They can pay YOU to drive them.

I hear ya but .. We have nothing stoping it now ... So they can do it yesterday if they want ..
 
So I'm a little baffled by the argument that our pay should be equivalent to 737 pay at American or Delta, or United. When a pilot retires at those airlines, that triggers how many training events? 6? 8? 10? When a pilot at Alaska retires, that triggers a brief upgrade training and a new hire training. What is the cost savings to Alaska for having a single fleet type with regards to pilot training? It is huge. Millions of dollars.
Is there any cost associated with having a single fleet type and who bears it? Let's see. A Delta or United or American pilot can choose to bid down to the lowly 737 and enjoy super seniority, but that pilot pays a price in pay. He or she trades pay for seniority.
At Alaska or Southwest, pilots don't have that option. You are stuck on that airframe and at that pay rate and the company reaps all the benefits of having a single fleet type.
For that reason, airlines with a single fleet type should expect to pay, and their pilots should demand, the highest pay in the industry for that equipment.
Delta management should be able to look at their pilots and say, "Well, you're not going to get Alaska pay on the 737 because that's the only airplane they have and their training costs are a fraction of ours."
 
I've read that scope language at least 8 or 10 times now. Can anyone tell me what scope protection that verbiage provides?
 
Anybody else having a hard time getting it to down load into iBook or good reader ... Is it 2 big ? The new ALPA server is asking for creds? I already put them in before? And the password doesn't work now ?. ALPA dam you!

Go to the ALPA MEC site for current log in info.
 
So I'm a little baffled by the argument that our pay should be equivalent to 737 pay at American or Delta, or United. When a pilot retires at those airlines, that triggers how many training events? 6? 8? 10? When a pilot at Alaska retires, that triggers a brief upgrade training and a new hire training. What is the cost savings to Alaska for having a single fleet type with regards to pilot training? It is huge. Millions of dollars.
Is there any cost associated with having a single fleet type and who bears it? Let's see. A Delta or United or American pilot can choose to bid down to the lowly 737 and enjoy super seniority, but that pilot pays a price in pay. He or she trades pay for seniority.
At Alaska or Southwest, pilots don't have that option. You are stuck on that airframe and at that pay rate and the company reaps all the benefits of having a single fleet type.
For that reason, airlines with a single fleet type should expect to pay, and their pilots should demand, the highest pay in the industry for that equipment.
Delta management should be able to look at their pilots and say, "Well, you're not going to get Alaska pay on the 737 because that's the only airplane they have and their training costs are a fraction of ours."

Well said !!!
 
I've read that scope language at least 8 or 10 times now. Can anyone tell me what scope protection that verbiage provides?

Essentially same as before except we now have language for merger/acquisition. So basically, we have zero Scope.
 
I've read that scope language at least 8 or 10 times now. Can anyone tell me what scope protection that verbiage provides?

Section 1.F is the only thing I can see that would resemble an improvement to language protecting our flying. Unfortunately it amounts to a fart in the wind as far as real protection goes. What does it matter if the MEC Chair or his Designee can have the opportunity to review codes share CPA etc. There is nothing the MEC can do if they don't like what they see. What a joke. All of our "improvements" are also improvements for the company. This is cost neutral at best, and will ultimately be concessionary when our flying gets farmed out. If any FO votes for this they are seriously misguided, gullible, or just plain stupid. Thankfully, I've flown with a few Captains already who have said, not just no, but HELL NO!
 
What happened to the first cornerstone, Job protection and scope? From what I'm reading, this agreement does absolutely nothing to prevent AAG from contracting with SkyWest or any other CPA partner to operate 90 to 120 seat RJ's on our behalf. The language spelled out gives us no protection at all, none, zip noda!!!

What he said above^^, I don't know how any FO in his/her right mind can vote yes! And shame on our negotiating team for not standing up for what the members wanted. Our best course of action is a resounding NO vote to send a clear message that this is not acceptable. It's our future at stake.

What about the provision in the training section to allow the geezers to come back and haunt us after they retire and take instructor jobs and seat subs from us?? Those old Ba$tard$ just won't go away!!!

They've had their cake, they ate it all and now the greedy geezers want to push us down and take our cake!!! They can go straight to hell!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
To be fair, KK can't afford to retire, when your family owns and operates one of the largest hospital groups in the World, you do need to keep picking up vsa just to cover the monthly bills.

LOL, I heard he purchased a nice Porsche with all the vsa? Was showing pictures to FO's he flew with!
 

Latest posts

Latest resources

Back
Top