ASA managment ready to continue?????

[Edct]

1. Dec 31st.. confirmed again today

I should know this business better then to say "confirmed", but thats what i was told by two other CPs.

Will it hold?? I guess we will know on Nov 1st.......
They are hiring MX there also.

This is really quite simple. The SLC crew base will close at the end of Sept. CPs will stay at least until the end of the year to close the base, and open LAX in Dec. Mechanics have been told their base will stay open for the foreseeable future. ASA will continue to fly out of SLC (for now) at a capacity near what it currently is but as just another outstation, similar to CVG.

 

[shamrock]

And I must say the demonization of a dead man with a family continues to sink to new lows.

Since when does being dead absolve you of what you did when you were alive?

 

[ASADriver]

According to the MEC/CNC the informal meetings they had were going well and things were moving in the right direction. But, when the union expressed their interest in getting back with the NMB the mood of the company changed at the last meeting.

They tied everything to a PBS system that had not been seen and knowing the company they would have wanted to make it up as they went along with no input from the union.

The company wanted no accountability to the NMB for basically ruining section 13 with a PBS. A section that has been TA'd no less under the mediator. The Company was asked 3 or more times during those sessions in front of the mediator if they wanted a PBS and they said no. They know that would piss the mediator off to scrap all that work they did.

So the "official" line has changed again. Lets recap,

1. Offer was made, but it included PBS. We don't wan't PBS
then,
2. Offer was made, but it was pulled from the table.
then,
3. Offer was made, but company didn't want to make it in front of NMB and it included PBS - sort of back to story #1.

Does this mean ALPA isn't sticking to the "company pulled the offer from the table" line?

 

[ASADriver]

Not only does ALPA say its not safe so does our Training Dept. That comes from the IP's who flew them in the early days.Then our Director of Training made the decision to fly two different types. Don't you think Drew and Nelson would have rammed it down our throats to fly both types, even they thought it was not safe.

701EV

I don't see the big deal about flying both aircraft. I would trade that for something else - pay or work rules. Other carriers do it safely, I'm sure we could too.

 

[GreatView]

I don't see the big deal about flying both aircraft. I would trade that for something else - pay or work rules. Other carriers do it safely, I'm sure we could too.

I agree. We are one in only a few that don't fly it common and cite "Safety" as a reason. I just can't buy that when ours would be an "unsafe" situation when many other ALPA carriers deem it to be safe and fly them daily.

 

[Bizjet]

I agree. We are one in only a few that don't fly it common and cite "Safety" as a reason. I just can't buy that when ours would be an "unsafe" situation when many other ALPA carriers deem it to be safe and fly them daily.

You suscribe to the FAA safety standard. If it is unsafe show me the body count and then we will make changes.

 

[John Pennekamp]

I don't see the big deal about flying both aircraft. I would trade that for something else - pay or work rules. Other carriers do it safely, I'm sure we could too.

You're sure? Are you POSITIVE? What if you're wrong, Biscuit? And are you speaking from your extensive line experience in flying both aircraft dual qual, or what the real pilots who actually fly without an instructor in the right seat tell you?

 

[John Pennekamp]

So the "official" line has changed again. Lets recap,

1. Offer was made, but it included PBS. We don't wan't PBS
then,
2. Offer was made, but it was pulled from the table.
then,
3. Offer was made, but company didn't want to make it in front of NMB and it included PBS - sort of back to story #1.

Does this mean ALPA isn't sticking to the "company pulled the offer from the table" line?

That was pretty good spin, Biscuit. When they kick you out of the "engineering" department, you may consider Corporate communications.

1. NO offer was made because paper never changed hands. Company gave a verbal "What if we gave you xxx, could you give us yyy?

2. NO offer was made because paper never changed hands. Company failed to produce when union asked for a paper proposal. Proposal company finally submitted wasn't anything like the "what if", and included PBS. As a side note, no mediator would have allowed the introduction of PBS at this stage in the game because it would be regressive on TA'd sections and would be considered "bad faith bargaining".

3. NO offer was made because paper never changed hands. See number 2.

 

[GreatView]

You suscribe to the FAA safety standard. If it is unsafe show me the body count and then we will make changes.

Whatever dude. Don't hand me your crybaby B.S.....

Maybe you should tell all our men and women in uniform that fly in the reserves that they're unsafe (they're current/qualified and flying completely DIFFERENT types when you consider the mil and 121). On that note, go tell every other airline in the world that flies common types that they're smoking holes in the making.

I'm sure you're one of those guys we hear on the ops & flt control freq who whines and complains about everything.

Go home to mommy and complain because I don't want to hear it........

 

[John Pennekamp]

Whatever dude. Don't hand me your crybaby B.S.....

Maybe you should tell all our men and women in uniform that fly in the reserves that they're unsafe (they're current/qualified and flying completely DIFFERENT types when you consider the mil and 121). On that note, go tell every other airline in the world that flies common types that they're smoking holes in the making.

I'm sure you're one of those guys we hear on the ops & flt control freq who whines and complains about everything.

Go home to mommy and complain because I don't want to hear it........

Mighty strong words for a freshman with 29 posts, there GreatView.

 

["GO AROUND"]

That was pretty good spin, Biscuit. When they kick you out of the "engineering" department, you may consider Corporate communications.

1. NO offer was made because paper never changed hands. Company gave a verbal "What if we gave you xxx, could you give us yyy?

2. NO offer was made because paper never changed hands. Company failed to produce when union asked for a paper proposal. Proposal company finally submitted wasn't anything like the "what if", and included PBS. As a side note, no mediator would have allowed the introduction of PBS at this stage in the game because it would be regressive on TA'd sections and would be considered "bad faith bargaining".

3. NO offer was made because paper never changed hands. See number 2.

That's the jist of it.

 

[Fallingbrick]

Mighty strong words for a freshman with 29 posts, there GreatView.

Yeah, because the more you post on FI, the more credibility you have.


Averaging over three posts a day since day one in your case...you on reserve or something?

 

[Bizjet]

Whatever dude. Don't hand me your crybaby B.S.....

Maybe you should tell all our men and women in uniform that fly in the reserves that they're unsafe (they're current/qualified and flying completely DIFFERENT types when you consider the mil and 121). On that note, go tell every other airline in the world that flies common types that they're smoking holes in the making.

I'm sure you're one of those guys we hear on the ops & flt control freq who whines and complains about everything.

Go home to mommy and complain because I don't want to hear it........

You are comparing apples to grapes there ShallowView. Did or do you fly in the reserves? Have you ever been in the military? Many pilots understand the possible dangers of dual quals between the 50 and 70. This is not an ATR 42 vs. ATR 72. All pilots are not equally qualified. Safety defaults to the weakest link there SPORT! Stay on your ATR where you have 1/2 the speed and therefore twice as long to make decisions. :crying:

 

[ASARJMan]

I don't see the big deal about flying both aircraft. I would trade that for something else - pay or work rules. Other carriers do it safely, I'm sure we could too.

Wasn't that Biscuit who taxied out at Peachtree City a few years ago in front of an airshow crowd, and those on the ground observed the flaps being lowered while taxing? Guess the flap AD doesn't apply to those in the "engineering" department.

VOTED IN FAVOR!

 

[ASARJMan]

We shall see if the gap was narrowed enough for the NMB to return us to the table cause we are done with the open generalities and what if's meetings that have no accountability.

Any poop from the MEC on whether or not the counter from the company is real, and anything of substance?

VOTED IN FAVOR!

 

[Tomct]

This is really quite simple. The SLC crew base will close at the end of Sept. CPs will stay at least until the end of the year to close the base, and open LAX in Dec. Mechanics have been told their base will stay open for the foreseeable future. ASA will continue to fly out of SLC (for now) at a capacity near what it currently is but as just another outstation, similar to CVG.

Actually, our flying out of SLC INCREASES in Oct and continues to increase for the rest of the year. This according to the CP on duty! With this being the case, your "theory" is blown out of the water. I mean think about it....ASA can't even run ASA in ATL, let alone all the way out here in the west....! It will be one of the biggest "Goat Ropes" in aviation history IF they close on Oct 1st!

 

[Edct]

Actually, our flying out of SLC INCREASES in Oct and continues to increase for the rest of the year. This according to the CP on duty! With this being the case, your "theory" is blown out of the water.

Holy God man, read the effing words! I didn't say we would stop flying to SLC, just that it will no longer be a CREW BASE. I don't doubt that the flying will increase since it's dropping so much in Sept.

I mean think about it....ASA can't even run ASA in ATL, let alone all the way out here in the west....! It will be one of the biggest "Goat Ropes" in aviation history IF they close on Oct 1st!

SLC works so well because it's so far from ATL. Atlanta runs badly mostly because it's staffed by Atlantans. Salt Lake is staffed by people with half a work ethic.

 

[DrunkIrishman]

Since when does being dead absolve you of what you did when you were alive?

I forgave Stalin and Hitler when they died.(TIC) People sure do speak highly of them.

 

["GO AROUND"]

A guy worth that much money flying an ultralight? WTF? He was what he was, good and bad. Dying didn't change that.

 

[701EV]

Don't you think Drew and Nelson would have rammed it down our throats to fly both types, even they thought it was not safe.

701EV

No. And I must say the demonization of a dead man with a family continues to sink to new lows.[/quote]


EDCT and Greatview

You missed the POINT! Drew and Nelson (RIP) did not think it was SAFE to fly both aircraft. I applaud them for making that decision. ( I dont think I demonized anyone)

Now for other airlines flying the same aircraft. Lets see Mesa and I think Piedmiont fly both aircraft. Nowl lets do what other airlines do that have a contract that is worse than ours. Lets lower the bar

How come Delta pilots that fly the 75 and 763 don't fly the 764. maybe because the 75 and 763 are similar and the 764 is very different. I don't want to hear about the 737 they are all 737's. The CRJ200 is not the CRJ700. I've flown both the 200 and the 700 and they are very different. In the last two weeks I've had standards guys come ride my jumpseat because they have not been in the aircraft fo a couple of weeks. Now maybe and only maybe we could fly both types if we had the same amount of 700's as 200's so you would see both aircraft all the time.

 

[JoeMerchant]

You suscribe to the FAA safety standard. If it is unsafe show me the body count and then we will make changes.

You subscribe to the union safety standard. If safety can be used as a bargaining chip, unions will use it. The crew complement issue and age 60 are two examples from ALPA. The fireman on diesel locomotives is another example from the railway unions and that is where the term "featherbedding" comes from. Safety should be kept separate from collective bargaining. Using safety as a chip undermines true safety issues.

 

[GreatView]

You are comparing apples to grapes there ShallowView. Did or do you fly in the reserves? Have you ever been in the military? Many pilots understand the possible dangers of dual quals between the 50 and 70. This is not an ATR 42 vs. ATR 72. All pilots are not equally qualified. Safety defaults to the weakest link there SPORT! Stay on your ATR where you have 1/2 the speed and therefore twice as long to make decisions. :crying:

Okay, so what you are saying is that people who fly completely different types week by week ARE not unsafe, but 50 to 70 flying is?

Apples to Apples....Grapeape....

Get a life bro.....I'm done arguing with you. You lose JizzJet!

 

[Bizjet]

You subscribe to the union safety standard. If safety can be used as a bargaining chip, unions will use it. The crew complement issue and age 60 are two examples from ALPA. The fireman on diesel locomotives is another example from the railway unions and that is where the term "featherbedding" comes from. Safety should be kept separate from collective bargaining. Using safety as a chip undermines true safety issues.

You have a type now in the CRJ or did you just stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night??? How would you know anything about the safety aspect of flying mixed flying between the 50 and 70? Actually you are the one who is trying to use a safety issue and as another way to slam ALPA. You will never get it. This has nothing to do with ALPA except perhaps notifying the CASC. Many of the IP's have spoken out against mixed flying due to safety concerns. Stay with the ATR there Joey so that you can speak from experience on mixed flying between the ATR 72 and ATR 42. Do you think that it is unsafe to fly a flight under FAR 121 if the TCAS is inop? If it can be deferred would you refuse the aircraft. Do you think ALPA should defend you if you were going to be terminated for refusing the aircraft? Since this happened to you why did you call your reps for help? With your logic you should have called the CASC only. Using safety as a cover to defend your stupid decision in refusing the aircraft because of your bone headed stubbornness undermines true safety issues. Don't you agree little Joey?

When are you going to turn in those minutes from the LEC meeting that you stole and refused to return? You know the meeting from about 18 months ago. Maybe your older girl friend would have the courage to come to the next meeting and return them for you. Or perhaps she could come with you and hold your hand so you could return them! How about if the LEC Chairman guaranteed you safe passage??:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[~~~^~~~]

Bizjet - really - why the personal attacks?

ALPA has a high standard for confidentiality which has been briefed to me as part of my training for committee work. This confidentiality helps ALPA as well as the line pilots, since ALPA gets better information if the pilot is completely open and honest with the ALPA member assisting them.

I think your heart is in the right place, that you want to make ASA a better place. Lets keep this debate in the spirit of making ASA a better place.

Everyone, and I mean everyone, has made a mistake in an airplane. ALPA works to help us identify and fix mistakes, often by improving on the systems imposed on us. For example, ALPA's efforts to highlight the issues about airplane swaps and crews taking the wrong airplane helped prevent me from taking the wrong aircraft one stormy night. ALPA recommended changes to the way the releases were printed and eventually management adopted much of what ALPA requested. Since then it seems the problem has been fixed.

But we did not need to know who did what to learn our lesson. The job was done while maintaining member's confidentiality.

JoeMerchant is an ALPA member who deserves the rights and privleges that his membership provides. He has differences in opinions about many issues, but that does not change his membership status.

I encourage you to focus on the goal of making ASA a better place, just as I encourage Joe to support our MEC which is the better way to get what he desires, too. We may have differences of opinion, but ASA pilots are not our enemy.

 

[~~~^~~~]

deleted

 

[Bizjet]

Bizjet - really - why the personal attacks?

ALPA has a high standard for confidentiality which has been briefed to me as part of my training for committee work. This confidentiality helps ALPA as well as the line pilots, since ALPA gets better information if the pilot is completely open and honest with the ALPA member assisting them.

I think your heart is in the right place, that you want to make ASA a better place. Lets keep this debate in the spirit of making ASA a better place.

Everyone, and I mean everyone, has made a mistake in an airplane. ALPA works to help us identify and fix mistakes, often by improving on the systems imposed on us. For example, ALPA's efforts to highlight the issues about airplane swaps and crews taking the wrong airplane helped prevent me from taking the wrong aircraft one stormy night. ALPA recommended changes to the way the releases were printed and eventually management adopted much of what ALPA requested. Since then it seems the problem has been fixed.

But we did not need to know who did what to learn our lesson. The job was done while maintaining member's confidentiality.

JoeMerchant is an ALPA member who deserves the rights and privleges that his membership provides. He has differences in opinions about many issues, but that does not change his membership status.

I encourage you to focus on the goal of making ASA a better place, just as I encourage Joe to support our MEC which is the better way to get what he desires, too. We may have differences of opinion, but ASA pilots are not our enemy.

He made the leap to tag ALPA with using negotiations on mixed flying with the 50 and 70 as a political negotiations ploy when it is truly a safety issue. Every time he post on any subject it is a stepping stone to slam ALPA and those who serve in ALPA positions. You need to post to him. I know you two are friends but he has not taken any of you advice. When he stops his attacks against those that are working for the ASA pilots maybe then you and I will have some common ground. That will never happen. Joey is a willing enemy of the ASA MEC and anyone who supports the union. He serves management well. He also takes those who post here in support of ALPA and uses there post as official positions of ALPA because he says that those who disagree with him are MEC officials. I don't believe there are ANY MEC officers who waste there time on this and other anonymous boards.

 

[John Pennekamp]

He made the leap to tag ALPA with using negotiations on mixed flying with the 50 and 70 as a political negotiations ploy when it is truly a safety issue. Every time he post on any subject it is a stepping stone to slam ALPA and those who serve in ALPA positions. You need to post to him. I know you two are friends but he has not taken any of you advice. When he stops his attacks against those that are working for the ASA pilots maybe then you and I will have some common ground. That will never happen. Joey is a willing enemy of the ASA MEC and anyone who supports the union. He serves management well. He also takes those who post here in support of ALPA and uses there post as official positions of ALPA because he says that those who disagree with him are MEC officials. I don't believe there are ANY MEC officers who waste there time on this and other anonymous boards.

I've heard from them that the MEC reads and laughs, but never posts. Something about a protocol agreement they have to only let communication people respond to stuff. But don't tell JB. Anybody who praises ALPA MUST be a rep.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Yeah, I know and agree. In fact, I'm considering retirement from FlightInfo.

ALPA is mostly good. The union has also really screwed up the scope issue. All you can do is support the part that works well and try to fix the part that is broken.

 

[~~~^~~~]

You subscribe to the union safety standard. If safety can be used as a bargaining chip, unions will use it.

Good for them. I am concerned that airline management has driven many of its employees to distraction. How a Northwest crew stays focused on their work is beyond me and Comair guys have had a very difficult few weeks.

Safety has always been ALPA's justification for its existence.

I don't want pilots to have to work two, or three, jobs to support their families while performing their duties as Commercial Airline Pilots. If ALPA bargains for safety - well somebody needs to. Does pay and QOL equal safety? I think the answer is yes when you get pushed as far down Maslow's Hierarcy of Needs as we have been pushed.

 

[goahead]

Why don't you get each others numbers, call one another and talk about this shi_t. You know it's the weekend free mins........ This is like reading a book where every page is the same.