E-190s at Airtran?

[-9Capt]

Perhaps my problem is hearing so many CA's that buried themselves in debt and now think they should make $250 an hour to bail themselves out. Maybe I've been tainted by them?

That's their problem, I just want to be compensated what a professional pilot flying for a major airline deserves, we're not there yet.

 

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

That's their problem, I just want to be compensated what a professional pilot flying for a major airline deserves, we're not there yet.

I know it's their problem, but I have to listen to it.

 

[-9Capt]

And if that is true, then it SHOULD be rejected. I hate making assumptions though. I prefer to react on facts.

That is what was implied during the last P2P call. More updates will follow soon. Look for Alan to address the issue you mentioned regarding not returning calls/emails also.

 

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

That is what was implied during the last P2P call. More updates will follow soon. Look for Alan to address the issue you mentioned regarding not returning calls/emails also.

I'll be waiting. I'm still waiting for a response to an email sent to him a week and a half ago.

 

[-9Capt]

SAP II is another issue. They NPA chose to take the automation away and NO ONE I have talked to wanted them to do that. Me included. Again, age 60, you said a representative poll was taken, yet of the last 40 people I have talked to ALL except one are opposed to it. How many were polled? 50? 100? 500? Who knows? Who does it truly represent? I can tell you that it has a lot of people angry.

The pilots were overwhelmingly upset with the way SAPII was working after the LOA. The only option we had was to pull the LOA and go back to the old way of doing things. SAPII works much better now, less denials due to low coverage.

The Wilson center sets up these polls, not the NPA. The NPA requests the information and the Wilson center makes calls that represent a cross section of the pilot group. It's not done haphazardly and has a small margin for error. Maybe your talking to people close in age/seniority therefore you're getting similar answers.
Personally I'm against it and voted that way every time I was polled. Apparently, I'm in the minority. Setting up an online survey would not yield scientifically accurate results.

 

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

The pilots were overwhelmingly upset with the way SAPII was working after the LOA. The only option we had was to pull the LOA and go back to the old way of doing things. SAPII works much better now, less denials due to low coverage.

The Wilson center sets up these polls, not the NPA. The NPA requests the information and the Wilson center makes calls that represent a cross section of the pilot group. It's not done haphazardly and has a small margin for error. Maybe your talking to people close in age/seniority therefore you're getting similar answers.
Personally I'm against it and voted that way every time I was polled. Apparently, I'm in the minority. Setting up an online survey would not yield scientifically accurate results.

There may be fewer restrictions, but there is no accountability. Crew planning can just toss your fax in the trash now. "We never received it, sorry." Or decide they are just too overwhelmed with emails, so "Control A---Delete" and start with the new ones. Why not just set the restrictions properly? I know a whole bunch of people, me included, that just didn't bother to participate in SAPII because it's too much of a pain in the ass now.

How would an online survey, in which each pilot was offered the opportunity to log in once, cast one vote, and then count the votes be unscientific? If you choose not to vote, too bad for you. It's called a referendum. I was the Director of Finance for the student govt where I went to Univ, and we did it three or four times for major issues like this one. That was a student body of 10,000, why would it not work for us? We did it to elect the NPA officers, are you telling me that the election was unscientific?? Perhaps we need a re-vote then?

 

[freightdogfred]

But, NPA saying Leonard is basically Lorenzo in the press was equally as bad.

Do you know his previous employment history?

 

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

Do you know his previous employment history?

It doesn't matter. It's inappropriate to say it in the press, especially early on. Call him whatever you want behind closed doors. But doing that was like having Kolski switch sides and speak for the NPA.

 

[Ty Webb]

The biggest problem with lack of support is the lack of communications. And I don't mean mass emails and the like. I mean the lack of personally returning calls and emails. It gives the members the impression that no gives a crap to take the time to answer them.

Yet if there were more people on the staff to return phone calls to 1500 guys, you would complain that we were paying too much in dues.

SAP II is another issue. They NPA chose to take the automation away and NO ONE I have talked to wanted them to do that.

The people I hear complaining about SAP2 don't seem to realize what actually happened:

The Company manufactured this whole problem by introducing new limits into SAP 2 that eliminated SAP as a viable means to improve your schedule (I had 24 legal trades refused the last month of FLICA-based SAP 2, because JT can't figure out how to actually run the program in an intelligent manner).

The reason that you can't get any SAP2 trades done now is that instead of having four different email addresses processing SAP2, they only have one now, because they want guys like you to blame the union, and accept SAP2 via FLICA, with the same problems it had.

And last, putting a question up on a website is not scientific polling, not even close. If you don't understand why, maybe you should have taken a Statistics class when you were in college, but I am not going to spend any more of my Sunday educating you or trying to undo the brainwashing you've obviously been subjected to.

Have a nice life.

 

[Lear70]

The one thing I completely disagree with is that people will leave for FDX, CAL, SWA, UPS anyway. I don't think the only reason they leave is pay.

True enough, but the only thing that would take me from here to one of those companies is pay. I like the flying we do (when we're not on a 3 hour ground hold for PHL like today and up against a 14:30 duty day now), and I would like to make this my final stop on the career path.

I can't stand behind something 100% when I don't support 100% of what they are standing for, can I? Would you?

That's the single, biggest problem the NPA faces with the membership. We are the MOST diverse group I have ever seen at an airline. There's no POSSIBLE way they can satisfy 100% of the pilot group ALL the time.

I don't like some of the things the NPA has done. I am vocal about some of the things I'd like to see changed. Many people see that as "helping management". I, like you, disagree. I believe we can disagree with certain NPA actions and still walk the line when asked to.

It's not a totalitarian state. To try to get people not to voice their opinions if they run contrary to the NPA's stated policies is ludicrous. People don't work like that.

The Wilson center sets up these polls, not the NPA. The NPA requests the information and the Wilson center makes calls that represent a cross section of the pilot group. It's not done haphazardly and has a small margin for error. Maybe your talking to people close in age/seniority therefore you're getting similar answers.

I dedicated a LOT of my time to the Communications Committee at my last carrier, and we used Wilson Polling several times. I can agree 100% that it is ALWAYS accurate within 2-3% if a vote is taken. They've been doing this a LONG time.

I'm one of the guys who supports age 65, with certain caveats. That said, it SHOULD have been put to a vote. We have the ability to allow a company-wide vote on this issue. At my last carrier, there was a rule on the books that ANY side letters or agreements concerning pay or QOL absolutely HAD to be put to vote. I wish we had that here.

There may be fewer restrictions, but there is no accountability. Crew planning can just toss your fax in the trash now. "We never received it, sorry." Or decide they are just too overwhelmed with emails, so "Control A---Delete" and start with the new ones. Why not just set the restrictions properly? I know a whole bunch of people, me included, that just didn't bother to participate in SAPII because it's too much of a pain in the ass now.

Sure, why not just set the restrictions properly?

I'm absolutely CERTAIN you can get the company to arbitrarily agree to SPECIFIC coverage percentages, right? Go for it, that would be GREAT! Thanks!!!

*sarcasm off* The problem is that we have no way to FORCE the company to set the minimum coverage levels in a reasonable manner. THAT was the shortcoming of the SAP II side letter and something we should have pushed for during the Christmas debacle when the company needed relief (but I digress).

Until we can get a REASONABLE staffing level number from the company to use for automated SAP II and have oversight to see that it's being used properly, there is no solution.

It's frustrating sitting on the sidelines and not knowing what's going on; I understand that completely. People have to realize that the RLA has no teeth, our company does NOT manage this place with the benevolence seen at SWA, and we have no way to affect change without the company's agreement or the SBA.

There ARE no easy solutions, or they would already be in place.

Incidentally, I'd like to hear more about the P2P call last Thursday. I was at a funeral and was unable to call in.