FurloughedAgain said:
Surplus,
I could not possibly disagree more.
That's fair and I have no problem with it.
I dont care whether this management team wants to buy CRJ700s or DornierJets, or Saab 340s, or Metroliners, or Piper Apaches.
Another airplane means one thing: 10 more people on the senority list. It strengthens the pilot group and provides a buffer for those on the junior end of the list.
Another airplane does mean more pilots and it does buffer those on the junior end of the list, but that doesn't mean that it strengthens the pilot group. If a new ariplane is turns out to be the wrong airplane for the Company there will be the "buffer" you mention for a short term, only to result in an overall weakening of the Company, which in turn will lose (for the pilots) not only the buffer but more. That doesn't strengthen the pilot group and I see it as shortsighted.
I'm 100% in favor of growth, buffers, and any other improvements that the pilot group can gain, but I want those improvements to be
lasting. I want permanent gains that will produce long-term benefits and more job security for all,
especially the junior pilots. I just don't think that Dorniers or Apaches would provide either one. We do not differ on what we want but we do differ on how to get it..
No, I dont advocate concessions in order to "purchase" the Dorniers. I do, however, believe that it is more than appropriate to negotiate a competitive payrate for that aircraft if management intends to pursue it. Then, simply let them do their job.
If in fact management intends to pursue that aircraft, it follows that we will have to negotiate for appropriate compensation. I'm not against that and fully recognize that we would have to do it for whatever "new" equipment management might decide to operate. That however, is not the same as wanting management to pursue the acquisition of aircraft that are not beneficial to the Company. Apples and oranges.
"Simply letting them do their job" is something we really have no choice about. That however, does not equate to a need for silence if you think they aren't doing the job in the best way. Sometimes "letting them do their job" ultimately results in bankruptcy when they don't, as you know better than I.
As a trade-unionist it is none of my business how management chooses to run the company. But if they say they want to pursue new aircraft, all I can do is close my eyes and pray that they are successful.
-Mike
Closing your eyes and praying for success sometimes results in unanswered prayers. You should know that too.
As a trade-unionist the welfare of the Company is definitely your business for it equates to the welfare of the pilots in our union. In fact that welfare is job number one of the trade- unionist. I agree that we can't run the company and should not try, however to just close our eyes and pray for success does not strike me as a wise course of action. A trade-unionist that relies on closed eyes and prayer isn't doing his job.
I have read many of your posts (in other threads) where you have said that you see job security as our number one issue. I could not agree more with that concept. It is exactly why I don't see expanding the fleet with Dornier's as advantageous to the pilots at this time.
I think our goal is the same. In this case we have a somewhat different idea of how best to get there. Anyway, nothing that I or you say here is going to change what the Company does. If they are determined to get those airplanes and they succeed, then we'll have to fly them and, as you say, "pray for success".
Take care.
EROSION 
