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.