Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Gojet Class Starts

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
BluDevAv8r said:
I believe there was no holding company in place at the time that the last TSA contract was signed.


-Neal

Why do you believe that? Do you have any documents that show the holding company came later? I keep seeing both sides saying it was there already and others saying it wasn't. Does any one on this board really know or is it all just posturing to support which ever position you are taking?
 
JackFlyer said:
2. "TSA pilots didn't give anything away"... Your right their Negotating Comitee was way to stupid to properly word their contract to include the holding company in the definition on "the compnay." Again ALPA's to blame. Their policy of "Pilots negotiate for Pilots", when the company has professionals, is ludacris.

The contract is worded just fine. After this goes to an arbitrator it will be ruled in favor of the TSA pilots and BloJets will be no more. "Pilots negotiate for Pilots" with the help of dozens of support staff at ALPA national including many lawyers and professional negotiators. Also, at many airlines there are former lawyers on the negotiating committee. The system works just fine.
 
FO 4 Life said:
Don't you mean get around APA?

No, I don't. Dispite what the RJDC wants you to believe, this has nothing to do with scope. If this was just about getting around the APA scope clause then TSA could create a seperate airline with a single seniority list so the TSA pilots could do the flying. TSA management is just using the APA scope clause as an excuse to screw over the TSA pilots and ALPA.
 
theo -

You can go to the State of Missouri's website and find it there. TSA holdings was incorporated in 1998.
 
fuelflow said:
theo -

You can go to the State of Missouri's website and find it there. TSA holdings was incorporated in 1998.

Thanks for the info...I assume that the CBA in question was signed after 1998?
 
PCL 128,

I want to make sure I have it right.

If the ALPA BOD say that GoJet pilots can join ALPA today, does that then mean all is forgiven?

As far as the CAL issue. I am trying to show that if ALPA is concerned about scabs then they could have said all non scab CAL pilots can join ALPA. If that meant that the deal didn't go thru, then so be it. ALPA needs to stand on principle.

You can tell that I and most ex-TWA pilots (aka burger flippers) aren't big fans of ALPA. We saw what they think of "little guys". I hope you never have to see what they truly think of regional guys. I can't tell you how many times I heard ALPA members speak with contempt about regionals. I think they're wrong because regionals fill a hole that some, not all, ALPA major pilots were to arrogant to want to fill.

These issues should never get to the point of hating the pilot because of the company he decided to work for.

Good luck.

CLAMBAKE
 
pkober said:
If the ALPA BOD say that GoJet pilots can join ALPA today, does that then mean all is forgiven?

Ridiculous hypothetical. Just ain't gonna happen.

As far as the CAL issue. I am trying to show that if ALPA is concerned about scabs then they could have said all non scab CAL pilots can join ALPA. If that meant that the deal didn't go thru, then so be it. ALPA needs to stand on principle.

Standing on principal is all well and good, but I don't see how it's supposed to help the situation by not admitting the good CAL pilots back into the fold. In the end, standing on principal and refusing to allow the SCABs back in would have killed the plan to bring CAL back into ALPA. That's not good for ALPA national, it's not good for the respectable CAL pilots, and it's not good for the pilots at any other ALPA carrier. Principal is great, but pragmatism needs to enter the picture at some point.

You can tell that I and most ex-TWA pilots (aka burger flippers) aren't big fans of ALPA. We saw what they think of "little guys". I hope you never have to see what they truly think of regional guys. I can't tell you how many times I heard ALPA members speak with contempt about regionals. I think they're wrong because regionals fill a hole that some, not all, ALPA major pilots were to arrogant to want to fill.

These issues should never get to the point of hating the pilot because of the company he decided to work for.

I won't get into a big argument over TWA, but suffice it to say that everyone likes to find a scapegoat for their frustrations. ALPA is a very easy target for all of the TWA pilots that lost their jobs. The anger you have should really be directed at the APA. Do you think you would be in the same situation if American was an ALPA carrier when the merger took place? I think not. The problem is a lack of unity throughout the profession. That's why it's important to bring airlines like CAL back into ALPA and to keep ALPA drives going at airlines like Skywest and Commutair. The more airlines under the ALPA umbrella, the safer we all are.

As for the major pilots disliking the regional drivers, I can't say that I blame them. Look at the posts on the RJDC threads from the Dan Ford supporters. If a bunch of senior regional pilots were trying to steal my 767 left seat gig, then I think I'd be pretty upset at the regionals too. Is their anger misplace? Of course it is. Not all regional pilots feel the way the RJDC pukes do. Most of us want to do our time and move on past the regionals. Unfortunately, the RJDC regional lifers are a very vocal minority and cast a bad light on all of us. I certainly don't like the fact the major pilots dislike us, but I can certainly understand it.
 
The RJDC and this entire thread would be a moot point if 10-15 years ago the mainline MECs wouldn't have thought their squadron buddies too good to start their civilian careers in a dinky 50 seat jet. Giving that flying away to "commuter trash" has caused the problem of outsourcing and whipsawing we are dealing with now.

Then again, I'm young, and hindsight is always 20/20...
 
BoilerUP said:
The RJDC and this entire thread would be a moot point if 10-15 years ago the mainline MECs wouldn't have thought their squadron buddies too good to start their civilian careers in a dinky 50 seat jet.

True. Very true. Too bad we can't go back and change it. I'm sure the mainline guys would make a different decision if they had it to do over again. Like you said though, hindsight is 20/20.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top