ASA - Upcoming Displacement - Idea

[gator_hater]

The more senior the capt the higher the ALPA dues...hence no action. I'll go for it but that would mean that we are responsible for our own situation and ALPA has no control.

 

[79%N1]

BTW.

Isn't this what voluntary furloughs and COMA is for?

 

[FishandFly]

Speaking of that, why didn't voluntary furloughs and coma come before furloughing the rest of the new FO's?

 

[79%N1]

Scott H addressed that in a memo.

 

[FishandFly]

Thanks

 

[GeekMaster]

Just a quick note.

This isn't the first time this situation has occurred.

A few years back, the company displaced several 70 seat captains back to the 50. The company offered to allow guys to voluntarily bid back. Newie didn't even consult the pilot group about it and flat told the company NO and to do the displacement according to the contract.

The result was that the reserve 70 captains that went to the 50 found themselves comfortably holding a line while some of the more senior line holding 70 captains "became" the 70 seat reserve captains without being given a choice.

Pattern based bargaining= If management asks for or allows it....it MUST be evil.

Don't expect anything different this time around.

 

[gator_hater]

No help from NT. He referred to the contract and basically said you should "bid wisely." saying that a vacancy bid would negate the need for furloughs. Some kind of circular logic.

 

[Texx]

The MEC is following the will of the members by enforcing the contract you voted yes to. It's not just the MEC being difficult. They are bound by the contract just like the company and can't just go around changing the rules without due process.
Next time, read, then vote.
PS: I voted no.

Long live 164!

 

[sweptback]

As I understand it, the current method of displacements is being done because it was the cheapest for the company.

The company has always had the option to put out a vacancy bid. There is no need for them to get any relief from the contract to do so.

They would have had to do it in a certain order though, but that is something that is possible by all means with the current contract.

I guess I don't follow you -- what exactly do you want this side letter to do?

 

[SLUF4]

on a side note-why on this new september assignments document are all the captains still in their current position? wasn't the displacement happening August 31?

 

[sunlitpath]

Like I said, it takes due process. It's your contract, if you want an MOU to ammend it, it has to be taken to the MEC and then negotiated with the company. It's not done over coffee in the crewroom or on FI because a few people came up with an idea.

It all starts with coffee in the crew room, or a healthy discussion on FI. This is how people share ideas and form a concensus. The MEC is not a person. It is an ambiguous, out of touch, apathetic entity that has been on the sidelines for the past two months.

 

[Speedtape]

I have an idea that could really help some guys in the upcoming displacement bid...

Put out a position notice for f/o (no captain positions). Allow senior captains to bid down to f/o. (a voluntary displacement).

I know a lot of captains, for whatever reason, would like to go back to f/o. Mostly scheduling issues - tired of reserve, wanting more days off, a commuting schedule, etc.

This could be a win-win-win solution. The company would save money by moving senior captains down to f/o which in turn keeps more junior captains.

The captains who want a better schedule and want to be f/o again would be happy.

The captains who are set to be displaced and actually want to stay captain would be happy.

I know the company is not in the business of making pilots happy...but it could be a money saver!


I emailed management and all the alpa guys. I got some positive responses from management. No responses from my alpa folks.

Any reason this is not a good idea?

Yes there is. No matter how this is done, someone will be adversely affected. What may work better for you, might disadvantage someone else.

The contract provides rules. If the contract allows it, then that should be fine. However, in the end, the contract should be followed.

 

[Speedtape]

It all starts with coffee in the crew room, or a healthy discussion on FI. This is how people share ideas and form a concensus. The MEC is not a person. It is an ambiguous, out of touch, apathetic entity that has been on the sidelines for the past two months.

The voting members of the MEC are 4 pilots that were elected by a majority of their peers to represent the interest and conduct the business of our Union and it's members. If they are doing their job properly, they represent the consensus of the pilot group. They don't jump through hoops for the minority or the few that go on FI with the "better ideas" but can't get off their duff to attend a meeting or even volunteer.

Knowing 2 of them well, they are anything but apathetic, aren't people who would be content to sit on the sidelines, and certainly are not out of touch. Maybe, you should try calling any of them, and sharing your vision.

Good ideas are a dime a dozen. In the business world, good ideas have to go beyond the water cooler in order to get to the market place. Our little business is no different. If you have a good idea, and are not passionate about it enough to follow through and advance it, who will? Otherwise, don't blame your elected Reps because they are not telepathic!

 

[Noise]

Long live 164!

+1

I brought this up in recurrent to SH and was basically told that they cannot do this due to the wording in the contract. They are also not allowing 70 FO's to bid back to the 50, instead they are displacing capts to the fo seat of their choice, which is fine, and then displacing the bottom X number off of the 70 to fill the vacancy that will exist on the 50. ALPA needs to attempt to come to an agreement with the company and limit the total number of displacements that will occur.

 

[gator_hater]

I talked further with ALPA this afternoon and their position is that if the company would simply include a single vacancy on the initial award that this would allow for the award first to be run from the top down and the the cut and paste method to get to the magic number. In the end ALPA says the company could go from the top down if the wanted to.

I think both sides are probably hiding behind the contract language on this one the company doesn't want to try and do the right thing only to get burned like they did last year. ALPA is saying that is what the contract said if you don't like it vote no. If we had single issue voters on every paragraph we would never come to a resolution. It is what it is at this point it is probably too late for this award. Hopefully they can figure it out the third time through if this ever has to happen again.