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

ASA CX flights

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
But doesnt Great ALPA dues help pay for a "GREAT" lawyer? Hmmm, maybe ALPA aint that great....

The ironic thing is it is people like Coopervane and crj567 who are strong union guys....Then they bash the same thing they support as the only way to go....then they bash Skywest pilots for not joining the thing they bash...Gotta love the irony of these idiots.....:laugh:
 
Don't put words in my mouth Joe. I'm not an ALPA cheeeader. I think we would do better with a different union. In house or otherwise. ALPA is broken. Our reps are broken.

Skyw seems to be doing fine without ALPA but I do think it is to keep the union off the property.

And the ALPA lawyers are far from great. They are playing checkers while MGMT is playing chess. They have been outclassed at every turn in every agreement we have signed since I've been here.

In fact Joe, I think some of the old contracts were superior to the current one. The current one is very well crafted to give the illusion of transparency and protection, but is riddled with weak language and loopholes. The bucket list reserve system as an example pretends to show transparency with scheduling, but in fact they can manipulate it any way the see fit, so the list is really useless. But there is the illusion of more control and transparency. It's just more buttons for us monkeys to push to feel more in control when we are not at all.

Yes, I know, the old contracts didn't have a bucket list, so you could never see where you stood, but now that we have it, we are NOT better off. There are MANY similar examples in the current contract which seem to be improvements but ultimately were not. Including PBS.
 
Last edited:
The ironic thing is it is people like Coopervane and crj567 who are strong union guys....Then they bash the same thing they support as the only way to go....then they bash Skywest pilots for not joining the thing they bash...Gotta love the irony of these idiots.....:laugh:


I'm sorry sir, but your litany of agenda based commentary versus the insightful viewpoints of others definitely does not qualify you to label anyone on these forums an "idiot."
 
And the ALPA lawyers are far from great. They are playing checkers while MGMT is playing chess. They have been outclassed at every turn in every agreement we have signed since I've been here.

In fact Joe, I think some of the old contracts were superior to the current one. The current one is very well crafted to give the illusion of transparency and protection, but is riddled with weak language and loopholes. It's just more buttons for us monkeys to push to feel more in control when we are not at all. .

VERY Well Put!

-Couldn't have said it better myself.
 
There are MANY similar examples in the current contract which seem to be improvements but ultimately were not. Including PBS.

Isn't placing the blame for March pairings on PBS a little like blaming the post office because your cable bill is to high. PBS is a delivery system and it gives us more say in the assignment of the pairings.

I'll grant that it allows for a few more efficiencies that enable the company to reduce some open time and reserve coverage allowing for a different utilization of the labor force, but to place the all, or even most, of the blame on the delivery boy is a bit ridiculous. PBS gave the company a little wiggle room, but I believe (maybe I'm naively) that ALPA and the company's line about stage lengths probably has a little more to do with the trip quality. I don't hear near the complaints from the 700 guys.
 
You are proving my point. Yes the stage lengths are a big part of the problem. But IN ADDITION, once again the "delivery system" allows the company to squeeze us even more. It gives us the illusion of control while we have none.

Try and look past your "sweet" 4 day schedule blocked at 70 hours and look at the QOL of EVERYONE imcluding reserves.
 
I guess the difference is that you see PBS effencies as the biggest driver in generating the lousy pairings. I believe the major blame lies with the stage length and route structure. The pairings would suck only slightly less under the old line system and we would have no control over how the pairings created a line.

I'll take more control over crappy pairings than less because I think they are going to suck either way.
 
What is it about PBS that you all think makes it easier for the company to hand out pairings like these? I am pretty jr and I got what I asked the system to do. If the pairings had been better I would only have worked 1 4 day the entire month. (vacation) because the trip values were so low I now need to work 2 4 days. I still have 18 days off in a row and crediting 85 hrs.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top