Alaska TA is out. Pay Rates.

[SRMairlines]

Do you think we are going to get a TA that prevents furloughs? I just don't see how voting no for is going to get something positive for you. quote]

Very few have stuck with flying 75-78 hour lines. Do you think for a minute that people are going to drop down to 75 hours since we got the misley 11-16% pay raise. You watch, greed will take over and they will fly 85-90 hours; it's human nature. They will justify that it's okay since they now have to make up for the past losses. So, let's do the math. If 50 percent of our pilots (roughly 650 pilots) decide to fly 90 hours every month,that is 3,250 hours each month. Assuming an average line is worth 80 hours, that is 40 less pilots.

At the volunteer roadshow yesterday, the MEC/NC was very quick to address these so-called gains in productivity(trade to 90, VSA, etc...). As a result of our TA the staffing model remains the same as addressed in the Vacancies section of the contract. Also, circadian low, 1 extra reserve day, the implementation schedule, and bonus work rules all impede the companies ability to staff based on any gains in productivity you see. Any reduction in pilots will come from a reduction in overall flying (like last fall/win) that is more than the normal seasonal adjustments. The union touched heavily on this and will probably do the same at tomorrows roadshow.

They also touched on the Furlough grievance. None of the ALPA attorney's thought it could be one, except for the posting of length of furlough. The award would have been small... such as (the company shall immedeately post the length of furlough after the settlement) Personally I would have been the hard headed one to say F@#$ You and take it to the end. The union believes that NO LANGUAGE in section 23 would have been improved at all if that happened. Section 23 per line has the most clarifications (not necessarily improvements) of all the sections. I still believe the furloughees should have had more of a say in the matter though.

 

[Fubijaakr]

And lets not forget the Company wants a SEA ETOPs base. That alone will significantly cut into staffing.

I know the furloughed guys are bent. I also EVERYONE is concerned with career stagnation. But to give in to fear that more will be furloughed is just plain wrong, IMHO.

Again, just MHO, but I think that once this contract is approved, the 60 "hostages" will be returned to the property. If we reject the TA, they'll just continue to hold them for ransom.

 

[SRMairlines]

There is an LOA as part of the TA that addresses the SEA ETOPS base. All this LOA says is that ALPA is open to talk about it. This was drafted out of the fear this would change staffing. The TA does not allow a SEA ETOPS base without ALPA approval still.

 

[Fubijaakr]

If you know the history of "base within a base" this is a SIGNIFICANT issue. This LOA is a groundbreaker.

 

[QCappy]

And lets not forget the Company wants a SEA ETOPs base. That alone will significantly cut into staffing.

Why would that cut into staffing? Any new base requires more reserves. Even a special qualification base. All it does is give the company less flexibility with their reserve coverage, if written properly.

The issue would be; do the ETOPS resreves only cover Hawaii flying or would they cover other flying as well. There are real consequences depending on how the language would read.

 

[Going2Baja]

Why would that cut into staffing? Any new base requires more reserves. Even a special qualification base. All it does is give the company less flexibility with their reserve coverage, if written properly.

The issue would be; do the ETOPS resreves only cover Hawaii flying or would they cover other flying as well. There are real consequences depending on how the language would read.

Sounds to me like the senior SEA guys want Hawaii and this is a way to get it......

Baja.

 

[Fubijaakr]

Why would that cut into staffing? Any new base requires more reserves. Even a special qualification base..

My fault for being unclear. An additional base would require MORE pilots and reserves (as you point out). That cuts into OVERALL staffing. To cover that shortfall, the Company would be forced to recall the furloughs and perhaps hire pilots to replenish the staffing pool shortages created by the new "base."

 

[Ocity]

Sounds to me like the senior SEA guys want Hawaii and this is a way to get it......

Baja.

Bingo!!! SEA wears the pants on the ALA MEC.

 

[mach none]

Bingo!!! SEA wears the pants on the ALA MEC.

The vast majority of the pilots are based in SEA. Why would the representation be any different my friend? If you want to change it run for office and implement a block representation system to break up the super-rep role call vote.

 

[Fubijaakr]

The vast majority of the pilots are based in SEA. Why would the representation be any different my friend? If you want to change it run for office and implement a block representation system to break up the super-rep role call vote.

Exactly. All it takes is two words in an MEC meeting..."roll call."

Funny thing is, in all the time I've be associated with the Alaska MEC, I can't EVER recall those words being said. Nor can I recall seeing them in a set of meeting minutes.

Unlike, for instance, the old USAir MEC where every vote was a roll call vote.

 

[Going2Baja]

Would someone please explain "roll call?"

We'll get this fixed!

Baja.

 

[Ocity]

The vast majority of the pilots are based in SEA. Why would the representation be any different my friend? If you want to change it run for office and implement a block representation system to break up the super-rep role call vote.

Chill the "F" out Mr. Sensitive Pants. Blue water flying sucks. You can have it.

 

[mach none]

Chill the "F" out Mr. Sensitive Pants. Blue water flying sucks. You can have it.

Funny. I did blue water flying and no thanks.

Have a nice day and I am voting YES.

 

[Old School 737]

Look at the annual shareholders meeting 10k statement on page 10. It says Labor cost have historically made up to 30 or 40 % of an airlines total operating costs.

Then go to page 18 and it says Labor cost are a significant component of our total expenses, Accounting for approx 25 and 30 % of our total operating expenses in 2008 and 2007 respectively.

Also says. Each of our represented employee groups has a seperate collective bargaining agreement, and could make demands that would increase our operating expenses and adversely affect our financial performance if we agree to them.

Then page 32 says they feel that we are the highest unit costs in the industry for the size of aircraft operated.

Page 38 says they expect wages and benifits to be flat in 2009 but increase on a per-asm basis.

After reading the this it makes me think that they are getting a good deal on employee wages and benifits!!!!!

 

[Fubijaakr]

Would someone please explain "roll call?"

We'll get this fixed!

Baja.

Sure. Before every meeting, ALPA National provides a list of every pilot in good standing divided up by base and status.

So, in rough numbers, SEA (900) LAX (300) and ANC (200). Usually, each LEC rep votes one vote on each issue. That's why when you read the meeting minutes items are passed 6-0, etc.

However, at any time, any of the LEC reps can request a "roll call" vote. At that time the reps vote the actual number of votes they control. The SEA Capt. rep has the most followed by the SEA F/O rep, the LAX Capt. Rep, the LAX F/O rep, the ANC Capt. rep and the ANC F/O rep.

In addition, they need not vote their votes as a block. An example: Say the SEA Capt rep gets 25 calls from members against a proposal he supports. He can vote 425 yes votes and 25 no votes. That way he can truthfully tell those individuals he voted their votes against the issue.

If we did business like USAir used to, the SEA LEC reps would demand that EVERY vote at the MEC be a roll call vote, thus they would dominate the MEC and every policy would be skewed in favor of the SEA pilots.

We have NEVER done business that way. The notable exception was the time a pilot was elected MEC Chairman on a roll call vote. The ANC and LAX reps got together for one candidate while the SEA F/O rep was on vacation and neglected to give his roll call proxy to the SEA Capt. rep.

That was over a decade ago. It is the last time the roll call vote reared its head at the Alaska MEC to my knowledge. We have been very concious of respecting the input of the smaller pilot bases and thus the "one rep, one vote" policy has been the unspoken gentleman's agreement.

The option is always there, however. For that reason, everyone knows that if the SEA reps wanted to pull the trigger, they would invariably get their way...providing of course they act in concert.