Alaska pilots - please think twice before you vote!

[PCL_128]

Do you fly for Alaska Airlines?

I thought I'd made it pretty clear that I don't.

Did you read the 292 page TA?

Yes.

You don't believe in the senior vs. junior conspiracy theory? Just look at the major vs. regional debacle, or the age 65 bull $hit. If ALPA or the senior guys really cared for the junior guys, do you think that we would have such a huge disparity between the regional world and the majors?

The "major vs regional debacle" has nothing to do with the senior not caring about the junior. Outsourcing couldn't have happened without majority ratification of scope concessions. By definition, majority means it can't be all senior guys. In fact, most agreements with scope concessions were ratified by huge margins, meaning tons of junior pilots voted for them.

As for Age 65, as much as I hate it, the numbers don't support your assertion. The National polling data showed that some of the most junior pilot groups supported the change while some relatively senior pilot groups opposed it. Probably a result of younger pilots being more "progressive" in their beliefs on what they might consider age discrimination.

What I'm saying is that, IMO, there are things that need to be tweaked and it's no disgrace for the NC to go back to the table.

"Tweaking" doesn't really justify rejection of a TA. If you get 85% of what you want in a deal, that's a pretty damned good deal. There is a lot of risk in going back to the table after rejecting a TA. It should only be done when the TA is truly awful. I vote against a TA at my company (AirTran) because it was a truly terrible TA. Your TA is pretty good. It's just not perfect. Big difference.

I can't see how the mediator would punish us if we as a group voted this down. The mediator's job isn't to ratify a TA, but to work with both sides to agree on a TA; he did that already. So, to say that the mediator will park us if we don't ratify this TA doesn't make sense.

The mediator doesn't make the decision, the NMB does. If the NMB believes that you've turned down a very good deal and that you're making unreasonable demands, they will park you. After looking at your deal, I would find it very difficult to justify demanding higher payrates in this environment, being the first in the bargaining cycle, so you can only imagine what the NMB will think about it. If you were down the line in the bargaining cycle and spring-boarding off of several other good agreements, then you could demand more and still appear reasonable, but not when you're the first out of the gate. What the NMB will probably do is park you, and then after a couple of other pilot groups have accepted a deal similar to what you're turning down, they might consider giving you a chance at negotiating something better. That's about the best you can hope for if you reject this deal. Is it worth waiting another 2-3 years for a slightly better deal?

 

[igneousy2]

As I read it, the TA allows the geezers to freeze their A plan and go with the 13.5%. They would reap all the benefits from the A plan and still stuff the 13.5% into their coffers for 5 years. No incentive to leave at all.

Exactly...vote no.

 

[Ih8AFYesmen]

I thought I'd made it pretty clear that I don't.



Yes.



The "major vs regional debacle" has nothing to do with the senior not caring about the junior. Outsourcing couldn't have happened without majority ratification of scope concessions. By definition, majority means it can't be all senior guys. In fact, most agreements with scope concessions were ratified by huge margins, meaning tons of junior pilots voted for them.

As for Age 65, as much as I hate it, the numbers don't support your assertion. The National polling data showed that some of the most junior pilot groups supported the change while some relatively senior pilot groups opposed it. Probably a result of younger pilots being more "progressive" in their beliefs on what they might consider age discrimination.



"Tweaking" doesn't really justify rejection of a TA. If you get 85% of what you want in a deal, that's a pretty damned good deal. There is a lot of risk in going back to the table after rejecting a TA. It should only be done when the TA is truly awful. I vote against a TA at my company (AirTran) because it was a truly terrible TA. Your TA is pretty good. It's just not perfect. Big difference.



The mediator doesn't make the decision, the NMB does. If the NMB believes that you've turned down a very good deal and that you're making unreasonable demands, they will park you. After looking at your deal, I would find it very difficult to justify demanding higher payrates in this environment, being the first in the bargaining cycle, so you can only imagine what the NMB will think about it. If you were down the line in the bargaining cycle and spring-boarding off of several other good agreements, then you could demand more and still appear reasonable, but not when you're the first out of the gate. What the NMB will probably do is park you, and then after a couple of other pilot groups have accepted a deal similar to what you're turning down, they might consider giving you a chance at negotiating something better. That's about the best you can hope for if you reject this deal. Is it worth waiting another 2-3 years for a slightly better deal?

A real fortune teller. I give.

 

[Fubijaakr]

Actually, PCL is a LOT more engaged and involved than YOU appear to be. You've bought into the webboard "reasoning" as enunciated by S.K. and the rest of his acolytes.

Perhaps you should think a little more long term.

 

[Ih8AFYesmen]

Actually, PCL is a LOT more engaged and involved than YOU appear to be. You've bought into the webboard "reasoning" as enunciated by S.K. and the rest of his acolytes.

Perhaps you should think a little more long term.

One thing I do notice about the "yes" crowd is that you guys tend to get quite emotional and judgemental. Enjoy pointing that finger while it lasts, old man.
As for S.K., he is a h*ll of lot smarter and informed than you will ever be. He can be a little too passionate behind the keyboard at times, but he brings up some good points. Truth hurts and reallity sucks, doesn't it? He's done more for the furloughed guys than any one of us have, so don't get all high and mighty.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

One thing I do notice about the "yes" crowd is that you guys tend to get quite emotional and judgemental. Enjoy pointing that finger while it lasts, old man.
As for S.K., he is a h*ll of lot smarter and informed than you will ever be. He can be a little too passionate behind the keyboard at times, but he brings up some good points. Truth hurts and reallity sucks, doesn't it? He's done more for the furloughed guys than any one of us have, so don't get all high and mighty.

Sometimes it seems like S.K. has done more for furloughed pilots than ALPA has.

 

[check6]

To me, this section might as well say, "Can we give your job to a 'regional?'"

Don't forget about SCOPE! The rest of your contract might look fine and dandy on paper until you realize you've forgotten about scope.

Keep the potential 100 seaters within the airgroup one way(AS) or another(QX).

 

[Ocity]

Sometimes it seems like S.K. has done more for furloughed pilots than ALPA has.

"SK" is entitled to his opinion like everybody else. However, I choose not to live my life, year after year, in a constant state of critique and longing. Believe it or not, sometimes I've got better sh*t to do than think about that stupid eskimo. You know, "better sh*t" like...um, i don't know, living my LIFE?!!

"these are the days of our lives" don't waste 'em.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

"SK" is entitled to his opinion like everybody else. However, I choose not to live my life, year after year, in a constant state of critique and longing. Believe it or not, sometimes I've got better sh*t to do than think about that stupid eskimo. You know, "better sh*t" like...um, i don't know, living my LIFE?!!

"these are the days of our lives" don't waste 'em.

I can't read everything he writes either, but I think his heart is in the right place.

 

[Fubijaakr]

One thing I do notice about the "yes" crowd is that you guys tend to get quite emotional and judgemental.

Emotional and judgmental? Let's read the rest of YOUR post and see whose pot is calling whose kettle black.

Enjoy pointing that finger while it lasts, old man.

Emotional and name calling in one sentence. Well done, pup.

As for S.K., he is a h*ll of lot smarter and informed than you will ever be.

I guess that is an opinion in the eye of the beholder. All I hear when I read his tripe is a lot of name calling and fearmongering. Like the last post of his..."If we vote for this contract it'll mean 240 more furloughs and 120 downgrades." Man, I want a look in his crystal ball. Maybe he should use it to predict the next stock market upswing.

He can be a little too passionate behind the keyboard at times, but he brings up some good points.

Except for the fact that NONE of his points have any basis in reality. I guess its easier to stand on the sidelines and throw rocks at the volunteers who are giving time and effort instead of getting involved.

The best thing about S.K. is every time he posts one of his diatribes, he generates more YES votes. For that, I thank him.

Truth hurts and reallity sucks, doesn't it? He's done more for the furloughed guys than any one of us have, so don't get all high and mighty.

Yeah, he sure has. Every furloughed pilot is getting what, $40 a month from his "fund". Since there are no accounting controls no one knows how much he's taking in, do they? Maybe he should be know as "Scam King."