ASA to furlough?

[79%N1]

Yet we have been told for years to not fly below 290 in the climb, nor ever fly below 250 at altitude. I'm just saying........

Nothing like 200 kts ground speed enroute in a CRJ.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Joe, would you support a measure that would allow the Mesa pilots to come to ASA, by date of hire, to end the whipsaw? If a bundle of them ended up tied into our seniority list, and it directly impacted your seniority number, would you embrace it?

I'm not trying to fan a fire here, just curious. Ultimately, the ONLY way to end this whipsaw is to allow pilots to carry their experience from one carrier to another, and not to the bottom where they earn 20k as an FO with 10k hours of experience.

I would IF it was included in a package brand scope deal that ended future whipsaw.....It would require the mainline pilots to get on board....The longer this drags out...the less likely we can pull it off...

Back in 2000 when the ASA and CMR MECs filed the PID...we had a chance...Now it is much less likely...

In the absence of a comprehensive brand scope deal....I support doing what is best for US....

It's time to $h!t or get off the pot for ALPA........

 

[JoeMerchant]

Joe can you elaborate on ALPAs responsibility for this

1. First they sold scope to prop up pay and workrules...At one time all flying was done by the brand carrier...

2. Next they used scope as a remote control to try and control the size of aircraft that were used....This resulted in the wrong sized aircraft being used...

3. Third they encouraged more alter-ego carriers to compete for flying with the mainline scope clauses...4 that were created by mainline scope language are:

Freedom
GoJet
MidAtlantic
Compass

All 4 of these reduced the cost of the competition...All 4 had lower rates and workrules...in addition to lower longevity.....

4. In addition to ignoring "brand scope"....ALPA refuses to deal with transportability of experience and barriers to entry.....Failure to address these issues means that despite all the belly aching on FI....nothing will change when nobody is willing to lay it all on the line and anybody with a couple hundred hours can replace you......

 

[Roger Dat]

I think that DAL would disagree on who owns the gates. Now SKW has right of first refusal, but there are some mean restrictions to it. Call over to DAL's real estates department. I have, and seen how it is structured.

we might own our gate leases, and Delta might own their's, but come 2010, they all expire and what happens then is anyone's guess.

 

[Abernathy]

1. First they sold scope to prop up pay and workrules...At one time all flying was done by the brand carrier...

2. Next they used scope as a remote control to try and control the size of aircraft that were used....This resulted in the wrong sized aircraft being used...

3. Third they encouraged more alter-ego carriers to compete for flying with the mainline scope clauses...4 that were created by mainline scope language are:

Freedom
GoJet
MidAtlantic
Compass

All 4 of these reduced the cost of the competition...All 4 had lower rates and workrules...in addition to lower longevity.....

4. In addition to ignoring "brand scope"....ALPA refuses to deal with transportability of experience and barriers to entry.....Failure to address these issues means that despite all the belly aching on FI....nothing will change when nobody is willing to lay it all on the line and anybody with a couple hundred hours can replace you......

I had a feeling that's what you were referring to. But unfortunately, like you, I don't see a way out of it.

It's like 10 people suing and counter suing each other and all being represented by the same attorney.

 

[sweptback]

I think that DAL would disagree on who owns the gates. Now SKW has right of first refusal, but there are some mean restrictions to it. Call over to DAL's real estates department. I have, and seen how it is structured.

I believe SkyWest owns the gates, but can't use them for anybody other than Delta. Kinda pointless, except maybe if Delta didn't exist.

 

[at7driver]

I thought SKW sold them back to delta....


you might want to check into the 246.. I do not believe its a good thing to be below 250KIAS in the flight levels.. poor engine performance from what I remember..


fwiw

 

[JoeMerchant]

I had a feeling that's what you were referring to. But unfortunately, like you, I don't see a way out of it.

It's like 10 people suing and counter suing each other and all being represented by the same attorney.

....in that case....we need to do what is best for us...and forget the chirade of some "brotherhood".....

A serious challenge to ALPA by all the regionals is the last chance to force a change.......

Many of us "troublemakers" pointed out these problems years ago....but they were ignored....ALPA has made the bed...

 

[79%N1]

I thought SKW sold them back to delta....


you might want to check into the 246.. I do not believe its a good thing to be below 250KIAS in the flight levels.. poor engine performance from what I remember..


fwiw

Thats what I'm saying. Some of those CI numbers seem suspect, as much as I want to be a team player and abide by them.

 

[Abernathy]

Thats what I'm saying. Some of those CI numbers seem suspect, as much as I want to be a team player and abide by them.

The 250 in climb is a hard number like many others that is used a benchmark safeguard. In other words, you "can't go wrong" at 250. That said, the engine won't corelock at 249.9 kts.

The CI takes the engine performance parameters into account and works out a more precise number that doesn't rely on that type of premise. It does the calculations so we don't have to rely on hard numbers like 250.

The numbers are good. They're just not as round as you're used to.

If you have any serious doubts, rather than ignoring the given CI climb profiles (not that you did), e-mail an IP.

 

[jetracer5]

its 250kts or .70m whichever is less. 242 at FL310 is most likely above .70m

 

[COOPERVANE]

its 250kts or .70m whichever is less. 242 at FL310 is most likely above .70m

EXACTLY 242 is LESS than 250 so you cant do it!

 

[JoeMerchant]

....you can actually do more than 250KTS?

 

[Cpt Oveur]

What can ASA pilots do if they line up next to Mesa pilots or Mesaba pilots or Comair pilots in unity? How is there unity if each pilot group has a different contract? Should the groups with members with more longevity be compensated differently than those with groups with substantially less?

What does unity in competition look like? Someone please answer this question in more than just conceptual terms. A lower bottom line cost to the company and strong performance numbers is the only way to offer a competitive product for a contractor to gain growth, or even keep current work.

I haven't seen any evidence of ASA stepping up to unite other pilot groups. Either the effort to get this work hasn't been done, or the effort to publicize it hasn't been done. Either way, put the BS aside and get to work now on a contract that management of different companies are going to want to go after ASA for.

 

[sweptback]

EXACTLY 242 is LESS than 250 so you cant do it!

Then you'd never be able to fly above, say FL340.

Once you get past the transition altitude, IAS is pretty meaningless. Fly the mach number, that's what it's there for.

ASA's high altitude training is pretty good, but they relied on some crutches like the whole never go below 250/M.70 thing. Phase 2 of this cost index thing will see cruise airspeeds below M.70 (unless something has changed). You may actually have to accelerate above M.70 before you can climb... but in level flight you should be ok.