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

More Alaska Furloughs

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
Register   Log in
Speaking as a guy that is on his way out……………..

To the “I told you so” crowd. You seem to be living under some sort of delusion that the company had Zero intention to furlough before April 16th and decided to do so after crunching some numbers that cannot possibly be valid seeing how the new contract hasn’t even been implemented. Give it a rest. They’ve been intending to do this for quite some time, probably based on the disgraced thief Saretsky’s calculations. They definitely waited until the contract was settled to tip their hat, but make no mistake, a NO vote would have changed nothing furlough-wise. Whatever they’ve got up their sleeve, it was going to happen either way.

While picking up VSA with guys are on furlough makes you a dirtbag beyond all hope of reproach, the concept of VSA in itself is not a bad thing. Think long term. If you want to pick up some extra cash on you days off when there are no people on the street, knock yourself out.

There is now a provision for pilots to pick up time and boost their paychecks. This is a good thing. When times are good, you are going to love this. The real problem is that there are a select group of PILOTS (not the Association), that will exercise these options while guys are on the street at the direct cost of their fellow pilots.

Everyone that flies more than 75 hours, under any circumstances, regardless of seat or hire date is a dirtbag.
Period.
The Association doesn’t bear the responsibility here, the LINE PILOTS do.
If we all act like men of honor and individually decide to fly the bare minimum, we will all prevail. Of course, whether dirtbags will allow that to happen remains to be seen. I’m not holding my breath.
 
Last edited:
Snapshot said:
Speaking as a guy that is on his way out……………..

To the “I told you so” crowd. You seem to be living under some sort of delusion that the company had Zero intention to furlough before April 16th and decided to do so after crunching some numbers that cannot possibly be valid seeing how the new contract hasn’t even been implemented. Give it a rest. They’ve been intending to do this for quite some time, probably based on the disgraced thief Saretsky’s calculations. They definitely waited until the contract was settled to tip their hat, but make no mistake, a NO vote would have changed nothing furlough-wise. Whatever they’ve got up their sleeve, it was going to happen either way.

While picking up VSA with guys are on furlough makes you a dirtbag beyond all hope of reproach, the concept of VSA in itself is not a bad thing. Think long term. If you want to pick up some extra cash on you days off when there are no people on the street, knock yourself out.

There is now a provision for pilots to pick up time and boost their paychecks. This is a good thing. When times are good, you are going to love this. The real problem is that there are a select group of PILOTS (not the Association), that will exercise these options while guys are on the street at the direct cost of their fellow pilots.

Everyone that flies more than 75 hours, under any circumstances, regardless of seat or hire date is a dirtbag.
Period.
The Association doesn’t bear the responsibility here, the LINE PILOTS do.
If we all act like men of honor and individually decide to fly the bare minimum, we will all prevail. Of course, whether dirtbags will allow that to happen remains to be seen. I’m not holding my breath.
Click to expand...
Not disagreeing with anything you put here, but there are a few issues I'd like to point out:
1- I have no doubt they were gonna furlough anyways, I just firmly believe that this contract etched it in stone and more than likely increased the number. Look, the efficiencies in scheduling are far better for the company, you have to admit that.
2- Not picking up extra time, no VSA, and 75 hours SHOULD have been mandatory items in the contract when there are dudes on the street. The fact that they were not leaves those doors WIDE open.
3- The "dirtbags" will be dirtbags and pick up extra time, fly VSA, and fly to 90 every chance they get, which makes this contract a seniority stagnation contract, period.
 
av8instyle said:
Not disagreeing with anything you put here, but there are a few issues I'd like to point out:
1- I have no doubt they were gonna furlough anyways, I just firmly believe that this contract etched it in stone and more than likely increased the number. Look, the efficiencies in scheduling are far better for the company, you have to admit that.
2- Not picking up extra time, no VSA, and 75 hours SHOULD have been mandatory items in the contract when there are dudes on the street. The fact that they were not leaves those doors WIDE open.
3- The "dirtbags" will be dirtbags and pick up extra time, fly VSA, and fly to 90 every chance they get, which makes this contract a seniority stagnation contract, period.
Click to expand...

+1.

Why wasn't a VSA-during-furlough prohibition written in the contract?

What would be the argument by the company?
 
Cause this useless MEC said it could be done cause the company wouldn't go for it.

Of course those old geezers won't fight for the little guys casue they're so busy taking it all for themselves, so what'd you expect?
 
That's right! The union actually said in the road shows that they tried to get rid of it but the company wouldn't budge, yet here we are with a VSA system that is even better for the senior greedy f'ers. Go figure.
 
Do not forget that all furloughed pilots have no career expectations and will be treated as new hires if you merge.

M
 
MCDU said:
Do not forget that all furloughed pilots have no career expectations and will be treated as new hires if you merge.

M
Click to expand...

Unless you merge with US Airways, then your career expectations could not be close to even the lowest seniority 190 driver and thus every Alaska pilot will be stapled to the bottom of the us airways list. Then AWA guys below that. MCDU, your statements never fail to make me sick.
 
ImbracableCrunk said:
Why wasn't a VSA-during-furlough prohibition written in the contract? What would be the argument by the company?
Click to expand...

av8instyle said:
That's right! The union actually said in the road shows that they tried to get rid of it but the company wouldn't budge...
Click to expand...

The Company's argument is the same as for any organization that hires employees. Its cheaper to pay 150% to cover occasional flying than it is to keep an employee on the pay roll. Don't forget there is a cost associated with the benefit package you have to pay for full time employees. It figures out to be approximately 50% above the salary level. And that cost is critical now that the Federal Law has changed to require companies to maintain 100% funding for pension plans.

Alaska management has always been committed to increasing the ratio of customers to "FTEs" (full time equivilants)...their euphamism for full time employees. How do you increase the ratio? Either get more passengers/customers or reduce the workforce.

Why do you think Alaska invented the self-check in kiosk? Why do they outsource maintenance/ramp functions? Why did they invent the "airport of the future" where passengers check their own bags?

ITS TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES ON THE PAYROLL!

So, if they can cover 5% of their flyng with VSA pilots, they don't have to employ as many pilots. That's why they're adamantly opposed to "no VSA while furloughs exist" language.

Let's not forget one thing. It wasn't the Company that thought up VSA. It was the Contract '97 MEC that introduced that language as a "senior pilot's pay raise" during a concessionary contract negotiation. So, its OUR bad that the language didn't include reserve conversion protection. Its OUR bad that the program allows the Company to function at a reduce staffing level. Its OUR bad that the camel got its nose in the tent in the first place.
 
Like I said:

Those old geezers won't fight for the little guys casue they're so busy taking it all for themselves. Contract, '97 or contract '09, still the same principle.
 
Listen, turbo, the "old geezers" had plenty of their own problems. Lots of the senior captains came from struck airliine (CAL or EAL) or bankrupt ones (BI). They had a WAY rougher row to hoe than YOU have.

Suck it up. You're expendable to Alaska airlines. We all are.
 
You guys with all the answers need to step up and volunteer. Be a rep, MEC officer of something before you sling to poison arrows. You appear to have all the answers, step up, be a man of honor and show us the way. It is easy to criticize on a web board behind a screen name. I tip my hat to the guys in office and the negotiating committee. At Least they had the balls to volunteer their time for you.
 
mach none said:
You guys with all the answers need to step up and volunteer. Be a rep, MEC officer of something before you sling to poison arrows. You appear to have all the answers, step up, be a man of honor and show us the way. It is easy to criticize on a web board behind a screen name. I tip my hat to the guys in office and the negotiating committee. At Least they had the balls to volunteer their time for you.
Click to expand...


best post on an Alaska thread in a long time.

Mookie
 
Mookie, I had to delete your post because you're giving out personal info (his initials) without his approval. Please don't do that again.

Mamma, I had to delete your also, but only because you quoted his in your response. Sorry about that.

A reminder, members are not to use initials, names, or other personal info without the prior permission of FI.com Moderators or the member involved.
 
mach none said:
You guys with all the answers need to step up and volunteer. Be a rep, MEC officer of something before you sling to poison arrows. You appear to have all the answers, step up, be a man of honor and show us the way. It is easy to criticize on a web board behind a screen name. I tip my hat to the guys in office and the negotiating committee. At Least they had the balls to volunteer their time for you.
Click to expand...

Amen, Mach. Well said.
 
Give me a break!

mach none said:
You guys with all the answers need to step up and volunteer. Be a rep, MEC officer of something before you sling to poison arrows. You appear to have all the answers, step up, be a man of honor and show us the way. It is easy to criticize on a web board behind a screen name. I tip my hat to the guys in office and the negotiating committee. At Least they had the balls to volunteer their time for you.
Click to expand...
Mach, There is not enough room for everyone who has an opinion to be on the MEC or the NC to get things changed to his or her agenda. However, I for one am fed up with the standard defense by the senior f'ers that in order to have an opinion I should have had to serve ALPA. Let me tell you something...this is my contract too, I pay dues, I am in good standing, and (big shocker) I have an opinion, however my opinion is geared towards equity for everyone, not just the top 20% of the list. I can tell you that personally, I will be unable to do any major union stuff for several years as I have 3 young kids, a guard job, half way through a master's, and ascs to go. But I am pretty sure that I never read anything that said union service was required prior to stating an opinion. And to be perfectly honest, this union needs some changes.
My personal opinion is that most of the FO's voted with their empty wallets, but I am sure you will disagree, after all you are a hard charging, kasher plus, retro pay till the last day kind of guy right? Or is it the long call you desire? What happened Mach? And by the way, every opinion I have stated on this board I have also put on the ALA web board. I am not hiding my screen name. Send me a PM and I'll be happy to tell you my name. I have been in the cockpit with you on more than one occassion......

Fubijakkr?? is that right? are you the guy responsible for getting a very good instructor fired from his instructor job at Alaska? Just curious since we're all laying it out there.
 
No comment.
 
Last edited:
av8instyle said:
Mach, There is not enough room for everyone who has an opinion to be on the MEC or the NC to get things changed to his or her agenda. However, I for one am fed up with the standard defense by the senior f'ers that in order to have an opinion I should have had to serve ALPA. Let me tell you something...this is my contract too, I pay dues, I am in good standing, and (big shocker) I have an opinion, however my opinion is geared towards equity for everyone, not just the top 20% of the list. I can tell you that personally, I will be unable to do any major union stuff for several years as I have 3 young kids, a guard job, half way through a master's, and ascs to go. But I am pretty sure that I never read anything that said union service was required prior to stating an opinion. And to be perfectly honest, this union needs some changes.
My personal opinion is that most of the FO's voted with their empty wallets, but I am sure you will disagree, after all you are a hard charging, kasher plus, retro pay till the last day kind of guy right? Or is it the long call you desire? What happened Mach? And by the way, every opinion I have stated on this board I have also put on the ALA web board. I am not hiding my screen name. Send me a PM and I'll be happy to tell you my name. I have been in the cockpit with you on more than one occassion......

Fubijakkr?? is that right? are you the guy responsible for getting a very good instructor fired from his instructor job at Alaska? Just curious since we're all laying it out there.
Click to expand...

If you are alluding to the IP that was turning the hydraulic system off to show what manual reversion was like, with people on the jet. No, I had nothing to do with getting him fired from the school house. You give me way to much credit. He was stupid and did that to himself.

I doubt you have been with me in the cockpit as I am a junior FO too. As far as the ALPA crack-board, I have not been on it for about 12 months. It is the same 15 to 20 guys saying the same stuff. So I have a pretty good idea who you are already.
 
mach none said:
If you are alluding to the IP that was turning the hydraulic system off to show what manual reversion was like, with people on the jet. No, I had nothing to do with getting him fired from the school house. You give me way to much credit. He was stupid and did that to himself.

I doubt you have been with me in the cockpit as I am a junior FO too. As far as the ALPA crack-board, I have not been on it for about 12 months. It is the same 15 to 20 guys saying the same stuff. So I have a pretty good idea who you are already.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure it was a freighter, but I can't back that up. And I was not inferring you were the guy to get him canned. I was too lazy to post twice and addressed the bottom bullet to Fubijaakr or whatever his name is.
Also, if you think I am one of the standard web board dudes you are wrong. I am pretty much a lurker except when it comes to near voting time, then I campaign.
 
Last edited:
So news I got from an ALPA rep was that the company sat down to talk to the Union about the SEA ETOPS base and we said sure if we get a 18 month no furlough clause. So that was the end of that conversation! Look for most of the downsizing to take place in the SEA base. Also hats are going to be optional after the company did a study and found it would have no neg impact on our public perception!!
 
Last edited:
The company also offered the rampers north of SEA a 2 year contract extension with a pay raise one year prior to their contract expiration. The union agreed but sent it back with a job protection clause thrown in for those 2 years and the company said no deal. Somethings brewing.
 
Didn't Horizon just settle as well?
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom