Alaska pilots - please think twice before you vote!

[Old School 737]

Did anybody hear that CiCi went to Virgin?

 

[Baze]

Yup, it's true.

Did anybody hear that CiCi went to Virgin?

 

[Old School 737]

Guess she thinks that Alaska and the lawsuits/inquiries won't be pulling the plug on them. Wow! How long did she work for Alaska?

 

[Baze]

Guess she thinks that Alaska and the lawsuits/inquiries won't be pulling the plug on them. Wow! How long did she work for Alaska?

She was with ALK for 24 years.

 

[Pilotbob3]

we could "what if" ourselves to death. I am still voting yes.

Dont you know you ALWAYS vote NO on the first TA?!!!! sheesh,

 

[Fubijaakr]

Actually, I agree with you all about VSA while there are furloughs. Personally, I think we should negotiate a sideletter that suspends ALL VSA when there are pilots furloughed.

My point was only valid for normal operations during non-negotiating periods with NO pilots on furlough.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

[Ih8AFYesmen]

Greed? How about the greed of the whole anti-VSA crowd. The ONLY reason YOU'RE opposed to it is YOU think its impeding YOUR upgrade.

News flash, sport. The Company only uses VSA for 2-3% of the total flying schedule. That's not enough for any upgrades.

So, who is the greedy one? You'll change your tune when you're senior. Remember, it was the PILOTS who introduced VSA to the contract. It was sold as the "Senior Pilot's Pay Raise" during a concessionary contract cycle.

If YOU can honestly tell yourself that this TA is good for the majority, then you have done all you can. Just by your quote, "you'll change your tune when you're senior" just voided your credibility. So are you saying that since you are senior, this TA is good for you and the rest of the senior pilots? FYI, I am senior enough that if this TURD passes, it won't effect me too much. Heck, it's even a pay raise.
What I'm saying is this. This TA clearly sells out the young and divides the pilot group. This profession has been like this ever since I can remember and this viscious cycle has to stop, and the time is now. I am not trying to sound righteous. I, too, REALLY need any sort of a pay raise desparately, but not at the expense of our future and our young. We have a chance to make a stand and to me, it's worth the risk. Let's not lose sight of the big picture.

 

[Fubijaakr]

Sorry, but YOU'RE the guys dividing the pilot group by using terms like "sell out". No one is getting sold out. Provide an example, please?

New hires? No A plan? I can make the argument that a B plan retirement program actually keeps the money in the hands of the pilot. UAL and USAir pilots KNOW how trusting the Company with your pension goes.

Upgraders? Every single pilot's upgrade potential is determined by the economic circumstances and expansion timing of the airline he works for. We have people at Alaska who, because of when they hired on, made Captain in 18 months. But that was during an expansion cycle. Likewise, Pan Am and TWA pilots in the '70s could expect a decade on the panel of a 727, 8 years as an F/O and a couple years as a Captain.

No, my friend, the contract isn't limiting upgrades, the economy is. Remeber the campaign slogan, "Its the economy, Stupid." That's where we are. Upgrades stagnate when airlines don't expand. Period.

Line holders? See above post for a dozen reasons why they're not getting hurt.

Reserves? Reserve always has and always will suck. However, its a LOT better now than when I was an F/O on reserve.

So, you let me know who is getting sold out. I don't see it.

 

[PCL_128]

If YOU can honestly tell yourself that this TA is good for the majority, then you have done all you can. Just by your quote, "you'll change your tune when you're senior" just voided your credibility. So are you saying that since you are senior, this TA is good for you and the rest of the senior pilots? FYI, I am senior enough that if this TURD passes, it won't effect me too much. Heck, it's even a pay raise.
What I'm saying is this. This TA clearly sells out the young and divides the pilot group. This profession has been like this ever since I can remember and this viscious cycle has to stop, and the time is now. I am not trying to sound righteous. I, too, REALLY need any sort of a pay raise desparately, but not at the expense of our future and our young. We have a chance to make a stand and to me, it's worth the risk. Let's not lose sight of the big picture.

Don't you have three FO status reps on your MEC? I seriously doubt that three FOs are all "senior," so how exactly have the senior pilots sold out the junior? It was a unanimous vote to recommend the TA for ratification. Sorry, but I've never bought the whole senior vs junior conspiracy theory. Your MEC recommended this TA because they think it's a great deal for the entire group, and they think it's the best you're getting to get. They aren't trying to "sell out" anyone.

 

[Ih8AFYesmen]

Don't you have three FO status reps on your MEC? I seriously doubt that three FOs are all "senior," so how exactly have the senior pilots sold out the junior? It was a unanimous vote to recommend the TA for ratification. Sorry, but I've never bought the whole senior vs junior conspiracy theory. Your MEC recommended this TA because they think it's a great deal for the entire group, and they think it's the best you're getting to get. They aren't trying to "sell out" anyone.

Do you fly for Alaska Airlines? Did you read the 292 page TA? 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? Fubi just showed his true colors by saying, "you'll change your tune when you're senior". Now, what exactly did he mean by that? Hmmmmmm.
I totally believe that our MEC thinks that it's a great deal for the entire pilot; no doubt. I never said that our MEC/NC sold us out by presenting this TA. 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. The company and the NC satisfied the mediator by agreeing on a TA. Membership ratification is whole different process. 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.

 

[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.