ALPA G0 jEt Update

[suupah]

"ALPA: "Let's just hope every pilot in North America won't go work at an airline we don't like" is not a strategy, it's institutional suicide. It's incredibly naive, has been demonstrated repeatedly to not work (even in true scab situations), and has never, EVER stopped an alter-ego. "

as long as there are a ton instructors out there making 10k ayear, there will be plenty of people waiting to fly a jet for 18k/year.

 

[Empennage]

Will "single carrier" issues will be nonexistant if **************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ********************************************** ********************************************* ********************************************* *********************************************** *******s elect teamsters?

http://www.teamsterslocal618.org/news-and-events.html

No. Single Carrier may still be won.

 

[flyer172r]

Their silence speaks volumes. DW's public appearances on this issue have stressed pilot unity and anti-g 0 jets rhetoric. What you don't hear is why they think this is illegal . . . and why they'll win in court. I think it's because they know any entity with enough $$$ can start an airline, unless there is specific scope preventing said entity from starting it. That scope, if it exists, has yet to be trumpeted by anyone.

ERGO, no scope for this situation. Who's fault is that?

Personally, I think they're sowing maximum discord and angst, because it's all they can come up with, and they have to justify all those millions in dues they collect by doing something . . . anything . . . .

Or possibly they're not stating why they think it's illegal so that they don't give away possible strategies for a court battle.

 

[redbook]

Or possibly they're not stating why they think it's illegal so that they don't give away possible strategies for a court battle.

whether or not the court case is winnable is moot. (I don't think it is winnable, scope language is weak) The situation will be won, due to the unity of tsa pilots, the support of the national union and the rest of the industry. TSA management is well aware of the fact that just because we didn't have adequate protections in our last contract does not mean we won't get them in the next one. The situation can work itself out here and now, or a battle can be started that drags on through contract negotiations. The latter is not a situation tsa management wants.

 

[millhouse21]

No. Single Carrier may still be won.

Could you elaborate on this "Single Carrier" item please?

 

[theo]

whether or not the court case is winnable is moot. (I don't think it is winnable, scope language is weak) The situation will be won, due to the unity of tsa pilots, the support of the national union and the rest of the industry. TSA management is well aware of the fact that just because we didn't have adequate protections in our last contract does not mean we won't get them in the next one. The situation can work itself out here and now, or a battle can be started that drags on through contract negotiations. The latter is not a situation tsa management wants.

So you don't think you have a good case and that there is no legal grounds for your position but you think that ultimatly you will prevail because it is something you want really bad. Does that sum up your position?

If so, what do you plan on giving up to secure this flying that another company will be doing? How do you bring Go-Jet to the bargaining table? Without legal standing it looks nearly impossible to do. Several months ago I asked about this scope language and was told ALPA felt strongly that the language is good. Now I am seeing supporters of ALPA saying it is weak and does not carry the day. What happened? Are you truly down to threats and vitriolic statements to intimidate people in an effort to keep them away from Go-Jet?

How is the recruiting going at Go-Jet? Are they filling classes or not? I guess that will be the indicator of if you are successful or not.

 

[J32driver]

Are you truly down to threats and vitriolic statements to intimidate people in an effort to keep them away from Go-Jet?

Nah... but your a DORK!

 

[theo]

Nah... but your a DORK!

Good One!

 

[fuelflow]

Could you elaborate on this "Single Carrier" item please?

A "single carrier" designation can be made by the NMB to recognize more than one air carrier with a common owner that, for collective bargaining purposes, is recognised as one employee group. Recent cases include MAG and Boston-Maine Airways. TSAH ensured adequate separation of the two companies to not be designated as a "single carrier" by the NMB. If ALPA is so sure of their legal position, they wouldn't even be entertaining the idea of a Mesa-like payscale.

And to answer the question about recruiting - The second class had all 24 pilots (more than two-thirds from former ALPA carriers) show up.

 

[redbook]

So you don't think you have a good case and that there is no legal grounds for your position but you think that ultimatly you will prevail because it is something you want really bad. Does that sum up your position?

If so, what do you plan on giving up to secure this flying that another company will be doing? How do you bring Go-Jet to the bargaining table? Without legal standing it looks nearly impossible to do. Several months ago I asked about this scope language and was told ALPA felt strongly that the language is good. Now I am seeing supporters of ALPA saying it is weak and does not carry the day. What happened? Are you truly down to threats and vitriolic statements to intimidate people in an effort to keep them away from Go-Jet?

How is the recruiting going at Go-Jet? Are they filling classes or not? I guess that will be the indicator of if you are successful or not.

No, just because the company has found loopholes to circumvent the spirit and intent of our cba does not change anything. Perhaps you have not been around the industry for a long time; pilot groups are constantly fighting new threats and run arounds to their contract by management and their co conspirators.

 

[BoilerUP]

If ALPA is so sure of their legal position, they wouldn't even be entertaining the idea of a Mesa-like payscale.

This is the second or third time you have said TSA ALPA is preparing a counterproposal with wages lower than you have "agreed to", or in this case, "Mesa-like".

Do you have hard facts and numbers, or is it simply your conjecture?

 

[FreedomAList]

Or possibly they're not stating why they think it's illegal so that they don't give away possible strategies for a court battle.

A definite possibility.

But no-one is even saying they have a strong case. (that's not giving away anything). They're saying "unity", "brotherhood", and "that's not fair!" will win the day.

News flash: It won't.

 

[FreedomAList]

whether or not the court case is winnable is moot. (I don't think it is winnable, scope language is weak) The situation will be won, due to the unity of tsa pilots, the support of the national union and the rest of the industry.

Mesa pilots had the same. Unity = don't mean dick. I've polled a bunch of my co-pilots about GJS . . . not a one has ever heard of you or TSA. And they should know, because they were spouting the same bs when the FAG (freedom air group) spooled up. MEC members may rally, but rank and file DON'T CARE.

And here's another news flash: national union carriers couldn't give a rats about you.

If anything, they hate your guts behind your backs because you want to fly planes larger than 50 seats. THAT, and that only, is the only thing about this god-awful mess the "national union" cares about.

 

[fuelflow]

This is the second or third time you have said TSA ALPA is preparing a counterproposal with wages lower than you have "agreed to", or in this case, "Mesa-like".

Do you have hard facts and numbers, or is it simply your conjecture?

You are absolutely right, it is conjecture - but it's what TSA ALPA folks are saying is coming from the meetings. I have other sources as well that confirm this. It's all a matter of leverage - and since they don't have any right now, all they can do at the bargaining table is beg or threaten an illegal job action.

As far as the Teamster negotiations with the company goes, all has been well so far. There is no agreed upon payscale yet, although I think the two sides are getting their numbers closer together. The GJ pilots were promised and are expecting a good contract, and the portions of that contract that have been agreed upon meet that expectation.

Like I've said before, I don't care who does the flying as long as they do it for a fair wage (relatively speaking).

 

[redbook]

Mesa pilots had the same. Unity = don't mean dick. I've polled a bunch of my co-pilots about GJS . . . not a one has ever heard of you or TSA. And they should know, because they were spouting the same bs when the FAG (freedom air group) spooled up. MEC members may rally, but rank and file DON'T CARE.

And here's another news flash: national union carriers couldn't give a rats about you.

If anything, they hate your guts behind your backs because you want to fly planes larger than 50 seats. THAT, and that only, is the only thing about this god-awful mess the "national union" cares about.

"News flash" - Your airline is yours and I won't sling mud or speak to what your pilot group is all about, or whether or not your fellow cremembers are aware of what is going on in the industry or not. But I can tell you about tsa pilots, and we will not fold, nor lose this battle.

Unity doesn't mean dick huh? I guess that all the pilots that started alpa all those years ago to change things and prevent all the abuses going on were not united. Probably better off if we just were all non union and had no seniority protections etc...I will be eagerly awaiting the next news flash from the past.