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

ALPA G0 jEt Update

  • Thread starter jjetpilot
  • Start date
  • Watchers 13

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
fuelflow said:
So far, it looks pretty good (12 days off for lineholders for example).

Well woopdee doo....our contract has 12 days off for reserves. I had 16 off this month as a lineholder.
 
Will "single carrier" issues will be nonexistant if **************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ********************************************** ********************************************* ********************************************* *********************************************** *******s elect teamsters?

http://www.teamsterslocal618.org/news-and-events.html
 
fuelflow said:
I honestly don't care who does the flying, as long as it is done for a fair and equitable wage.

If you truly don't care who does the flying, then you wouldn't object to that flying being done by Trans States pilots, on one seniority list.
 
fuelflow said:
You're right that it is my OPINION that ALPA won't win in court. It just so happens that ALPA national shares that opinion. We've said it all along, but some won't listen. As far as the GJ pilot contract goes, ask the guys negotiating the CBA. So far, it looks pretty good (12 days off for lineholders for example).

I honestly don't care who does the flying, as long as it is done for a fair and equitable wage.

Why do you say ALPA national shares that opinion. Did they take a position on this issue like that? What proof do you have to back this up?
 
theo said:
Why do you say ALPA national shares that opinion. Did they take a position on this issue like that? What proof do you have to back this up?

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 . . . .
 
"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.
 
Bako Cap said:
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.
 
FreedomAList said:
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.
 
flyer172r said:
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.
 
Empennage said:
No. Single Carrier may still be won.

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

Latest resources

Back
Top