ASA contract position.

[FL000]

While it would be nice to think the ASA pilots would do otherwise, we will never know.

We did do otherwise.

 

[Tomct]

Yeah, they already asked us to take a contract extension to get more airplanes and we sent them packing....and STILL got the airplanes! Way to go guys/gals. I am very proud of us for that, now we have to do the same for this contract! Comair (old Pay) PLUS!!!

 

[Medeco]

Yeah, they already asked us to take a contract extension to get more airplanes and we sent them packing....and STILL got the airplanes! Way to go guys/gals. I am very proud of us for that, now we have to do the same for this contract! Comair (old Pay) PLUS!!!

Actually the ASA pilot group did not vote on this issue a year ago as you well know. But our MEC spoke for us, as they should.

But, there is a (small)percentage of ASA pilots who would have liked the opportunity to vote on the request from management.

Playing devil's advocate, who is to say that if we had voted last year, that it would have been turned down? In addition who is to say we ASA would have not ended up with 45 new aircraft instead of 25, if we had agreed?

I feel sure it would have been voted down in a big way, but we were not offered a deal that said we would go back to the status quo if no planes were awarded, so in this way our deal was much different than what comair was offered by Freddie Bustaunion.

I am dissappointed with the comair deal, but I dont understand why so many of you on this board are pointing fingers at comair and calling names.

Each side of this issue has very good and bad points to it, it is now up to our CNC to spin this in our favor as best they can. And up to us as pilots to carry on as professional people and not allow this to whipsaw our groups against each other.

Medeco

 

[atrdriver]

I would argue the point that air travel is a luxury. In this age it is largely a necessity, much as fuel is. Too many people NEED to travel long distance, in a short time, where driving or taking the bus isn't an option. And as far as the $8000 vs $7700 example, it doesn't really matter if both are losing money. If, for example, an airline can't fill up 14 planes on a given city pair at a given price, then they need to reduce the number of seats. Our passengers have gotten into the Wal-Mart mindset, expecting a cheap seat at whatever time they choose to travel. Profit isn't a bad word, although we are taught to think that it is. The passengers are the ones that need to cover the cost of the tickets, including the increased fuel cost, not the employees, or the airlines.

 

[FL000]

Playing devil's advocate, who is to say that if we had voted last year, that it would have been turned down? In addition who is to say we ASA would have not ended up with 45 new aircraft instead of 25, if we had agreed?

I'll take the bird in the hand, and the satisfaction that we stood our ground. Whether it was the MEC or the membership doesn't matter. Granted, I don't believe for a second that it would have been a 100% no vote had it been presented to us, but I'm glad it was nipped in the bud as it should have been. I haven't spoken to anyone who resents that decision.

You make valid points, but they are moot.