AS Recalls?

[igneousy2]

It is not an artificial time pressure. See my post above. They are actually running out of time.

Now, who is to blame? Well the schedules are run by marketing, period. So they decide when and where the airline goes. After that, flight ops runs around with thier head cut off for a while, trying to figure out how they are going to staff what marketing decides. I don't think there is much communication between the two prior to deciding new routes...at least it never appears that way. So in the end they run out of time if all the stars don't magically align. In this case they already furloughed too many. So now they are caught with their shorts around their ankles wondering how in the world they are going to staff 950 new hours of flying per month by June.

I'm pretty sure the Union is not caving in easy on this one. I actually have a lot more confidence than usual on this one.

I think You're missing my point...the company needs/wants relief from our CBA...THEY have a deadline because THEY decided they wanted to fly to Hawaii from the bay area after furloughing a bunch of their ETOPS qualified pilots this March. The company has two choices, comply with our CBA and cover the ETOPS flying in a less than optimal way...or give us what we want and get their ETOPS-SEA base. There is a deadline but it is only the companies. Additionally, just because we don't get a deal by March does not mean we can't get a deal later. We should not rush an agreement through without "following the proper ALPA protocol." Funny, I seem to remember some members of the MEC and the SEA-LEC in particular raising holy hell about not caving to deadlines imposed by the company(i.e. eliminate 2nd step trading to save junior pilots jobs) but when it would benefit them, they are all of a sudden willing to sweep the "ALPA protocol" aside. This is not a minor issue. This will definetly be a major and PERMANENT (as opposed to an automatic one year expiration) change to our CBA and we should follow the "ALPA protocol" and make sure the TA that results gets a proper public vetting and put up for a vote.

As far as your statement "thank god for LEC's" don't forget that the SEA LEC is the big dog at the MEC as they can (if they choose to invoke it) cast 1 vote for every pilot they represent which I believe is still more than LAX and ANC combined.

Also -- I don't believe our CBA allows PDX to be a co-base.

 

[QCappy]

As far as your statement "thank god for LEC's"

I didn't say that, but I understand now what you were getting at.

 

[igneousy2]

You're right...that was going2baja and I will correct the quote to "thank goodness for LECs"

Sorry

 

[Chief Pilot]

I disagree. I think management knows that it could be mutually beneficial.

I agree with you Cesna, and stand corrected. Most likely management already knows what they intend to do.

Word on the Street is that there is going to be a position bid in early to mid-January to staff properly by April. If management is not getting satisfaction on the SEA ETOPS base, I think a PDX base is the next logical step. Obviously this won't help LAX or ANC, but unfortunately if it goes to a vote, SEA out-votes them all and ends up with an ETOPS base. Personally, I hope that does not happen. I don't live in PDX or intend to move there, but I think in the long run it will be better for the pilots and the company. More recalls with a PDX base, than if SEA gets a base within a base.

CP.

 

[mach none]

OK, no base "owns" the flying. The company can move the flying right now. They can shrink or close a base if desired. They have the ability via the CBA right now. As far as which scenario is best, we are all speculating on a forum without any info. All I can say is we must be careful about what we ask for as there will always be unintended consequences (I am referring to the PDX base or reshuffle or SEA ETOPS). The ETOPS base language could be with us forever.

The Negotiating team and the MEC have all the pertinent information and will get the best deal possible for the betterment of the ENTIRE pilot group. You must remember, the MEC is not out to screw one base over to preserve or enhance another.

 

[QCappy]

All great points, Mach. We shall see what happens in January.

 

[NWaviator]

Anyone look at the 8K that came out today? Looks like some pretty good numbers for both AS and QX load factor wise. I hope that you get some recalls. Good luck.

 

[Green Banana]

I want to know what ALK is doing with 1.3 Billion in CASH and marketable securities? Up 30% in the last 12 months! FUPM!

 

[QCappy]

I want to know what ALK is doing with 1.3 Billion in CASH and marketable securities? Up 30% in the last 12 months! FUPM!

Taking baths in it and rubbing it in your face with a Christmas card with no gift. Take that you peon employee....or not.

 

[Green Banana]

You are not an employee, you get nothing. The real Alaska family got PAY DAY candy bars again!

 

[AK737FO]

Open a PDX base = to expensive, company is shying away from it.

SEA ETOPS base within a base = negotiations. Not enough time.

Grow LAX = to much soft time, not as efficient.

Grow ANC = short term answer to the problem coming in 2.5 months.

Last rumor I heard from the ANC LEC was about 20 new Capt seats in ANC with no reduction to SEA or LAX. That means a recall for some great people we all want back on the line.

Take note that the ANC base is suppose to have 80 F/O's. The BCP said that we actually have about 64 now due to mil leaves and what not. So we need to gain 16 F/O's off the street to get back to what we are suppose to be staffed at, before we even begin to talk about extra ETOPS flying that starts in March.

I think the tide has finally turned.

 

[Snapshot]

They know what they are doing. The last two times they let the pilot group vote, I got $crewed. I have more faith in my MEC to do the right thing than this pilot group.

Who do you think wrote the memo that killed the MOU? Most of the guys that voted it down didn't even bother to actually read it. An MEC officer told them it hurt his feelings and 30 guys lost their jobs.

 

[8v8ter]

Not sure what you mean by "soft time" in growing LAX (honest question). Why is it any easier or more efficient to a get a crew from ANC to PDX, OAK, SJC, or SMF than from LAX. It seems both bases should grow which is what I hope happens rather than the base w/in a base.

Open a PDX base = to expensive, company is shying away from it.

SEA ETOPS base within a base = negotiations. Not enough time.

Grow LAX = to much soft time, not as efficient.

Grow ANC = short term answer to the problem coming in 2.5 months.

Last rumor I heard from the ANC LEC was about 20 new Capt seats in ANC with no reduction to SEA or LAX. That means a recall for some great people we all want back on the line.

Take note that the ANC base is suppose to have 80 F/O's. The BCP said that we actually have about 64 now due to mil leaves and what not. So we need to gain 16 F/O's off the street to get back to what we are suppose to be staffed at, before we even begin to talk about extra ETOPS flying that starts in March.

I think the tide has finally turned.

 

[Old School 737]

I am hearing SLC to be announced early in the new year.

 

[AK737FO]

I don't really know why an ETOPS pairing with ANC pilots is more efficient than an ETOPS pairings with LAX pilots. I'm only passing on what the BCP told me. He said the computer pairing builder / "Sodimizer" said that ANC was more effcient.
I too hope that they grow ANC and LAX rather than a base in a base at SEA.