No comment on ASA PBS LOA yet?

[sweptback]

Once the contract becomes amendable 11/2011, if there is no TA it goes immediately to arbitration.

No, it goes to mediation. Huge difference.

 

[Tarzan]

No, it goes to mediation. Huge difference.

Oops. Arbitration is sorta binding huh...

 

[aircombat]

The guys who do have the numbers are generally bound by confidentiality agrees about the actual costs. I've heard percentage numbers from fairly reputable sources and we aren't that far off. Granted as you SpeedTape have pointed out, we have some issues we can not overcome unless we grow and become less senior. But there has been a serious cutting of costs. Even our guy Leonard got the axe. I hate it for him. The outstations we kept in the latest round had pay cuts imposed. Our MCN base was outsourced. There have been many other programs cut or streamlined. Tutt and his merry band football screwing monkeys like to point at FLT OPS costs but we still bid a rate and that rate encompasses everything not just pilots. I wish I could see the real costs and share them but anyone who has the info would get their peckers caught in a crack over it. Nothing the union or anyone else can do about it.

PBS as a trial period is a nice thought. I have my reservations too but overall, I feel it is a win-win for me when I look at the complete picture. However, I don't see this contract nearly as long as many fear (for good reason). Once the contract becomes amendable 11/2011, if there is no TA it goes immediately to arbitration. The pay rates that we see an extension on are for the additional year extension. We still start talks in May.

Tarzan, I hate to say it but the arbitration thing is not the only false statement from your post. Since SKYW is a publicly traded company it is actually illegal for them to be “bound by confidentiality about the actual costs”. Things such as income, expenses, and assets have to be made public. This fact is backed by the recent news articles that label ASA as being one of the most expensive regional airlines, and they had figures backing their statements. If news organizations can obtain these numbers I’m sure that the union could. Not only could they, but they should if they were doing their job correctly. Talking about cost yet not providing any figures to back their statements is flat out reckless.

 

[Tarzan]

Tarzan, I hate to say it but the arbitration thing is not the only false statement from your post. Since SKYW is a publicly traded company it is actually illegal for them to be “bound by confidentiality about the actual costs”. Things such as income, expenses, and assets have to be made public. This fact is backed by the recent news articles that label ASA as being one of the most expensive regional airlines, and they had figures backing their statements. If news organizations can obtain these numbers I’m sure that the union could. Not only could they, but they should if they were doing their job correctly. Talking about cost yet not providing any figures to back their statements is flat out reckless.

Fine. You obviously have it all figured out. If the numbers are all public, why don't you have them now? After all, I'm just being reckless. The only report I saw disclosed crew costs. You got another one? Remember, if the reporter just says ASA is expensive, he's being "flat out reckless." Hey maybe you'll walk your lazy butt over to the GO and ask questions yourself! Then you can quit making assertions that I making false statements or basically calling me a liar. GFY.

 

[enuffalready]

the point that aircombat is trying to make is that this is the kind of stuff that ALPA should be doing for us. Why dont we have forensic accountants that tell us EXACTLY what percentage this will save ASA and exactly what our costs are compared to SKW. Then we could all sit at the same table and make a educated decison rather than spitballing. Seems like an smart way to make a decision to me.

 

[PCL_128]

Companies don't allow that sort of detailed information to be made public. They consider it to be confidential, proprietary information. They usually agree to provide it to ALPA, but only under confidentiality agreement.

 

[Tarzan]

the point that aircombat is trying to make is that this is the kind of stuff that ALPA should be doing for us. Why dont we have forensic accountants that tell us EXACTLY what percentage this will save ASA and exactly what our costs are compared to SKW. Then we could all sit at the same table and make a educated decison rather than spitballing. Seems like an smart way to make a decision to me.

I'd like to see that too. Lots of numbers go into that magical "cost per block hour" vs what is being bid. And BTW, the bid numbers are confidential. Problem is that he would be the guy accusing the company and union of cooking numbers to push things on the pilot group they don't want. No matter which way the union goes, they will be damned if the they and damned if they don't. aircombat's take on this is throwing stuff against the wall to see what will stick because he is pissed about where he finds himself today. He also appears very willing to shoot himself in the foot to spite the company for what he perceives as a grave injustice. I have a hard time discussing things that I have spent my own time on only to be called a liar when he can do the same if he cared enough.

Sadly, I don't believe the company has any intention of even entertaining the idea. They'd lose their ability to pit the two groups against each other or rather pit ASA against an unrepresented group. They would rather be vague about it about push whatever buttons they can. The PBS would be fine with me even if we weren't in a money crunch or efficiency crunch. I like most things about it because it gives me more options. I wish there were a couple of other things in there that related to reserve. (I intend to bend the MEC's ear about some ideas in the next contract such a the same rights as line holder in being extended i.e. 150% over guarantee and only six times a year.) Maybe we can force the company's hand to see where we need to be. However, my bet is that if we are able to get the real numbers, the pilot group would riot and claim it is not the pilot's job to make a profitable company. We need to be open minded about this if we push the union to this (if we can even get the company the agree).

 

[aircombat]

http://www.skywest.com/skywinc/invest/investor_releases/SKYW Earnings 3Q09.pdf

SKYWEST, INC.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(Dollars and Shares in Thousands, Except per Share Amounts) ​

(Unaudited)

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Three Months Ended [/FONT][/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]September 30, 2009[/FONT][/FONT]​

OPERATING EXPENSES: ​

Aircraft fuel

61,842 ​

Salaries, wages and benefits
175,552

Aircraft maintenance, materials and repairs

119,055​

Aircraft rentals

76,189​

Depreciation and amortization
55,461

Station rentals and landing fees
27,500

Ground handling services ​

23,538
Other, net
35,358

Total operating expenses

574,495
​

Wow look things are not so top secret! You are talking about bid numbers when I'm talking about expenses. Totally different.​

What this tells us is that Inc spends roughly $2.3 Billion dollars a year. However it doesn’t separate ASA from Skywest. I’m sure that there is a better than good chance that data must be made public as well. I could spend time trying to find out the exact numbers however if I give them to you are you going to believe me? What credibility do I have? That’s why we need the union to do it. They more than likely will not do it even after being asked when they should be doing it without having to be asked.​

With the $2.3 Billion dollar figure we can still get a rough estimate and put this “cost savings” into better perspective. Using the current aircraft count and assuming they are blocked for roughly the same amount of hours, ASA is 57% the size of Skywest. That would put ASA at conservatively $600 Million per year. If PBS could save the company $8 Million a year that is 1.2% of our annual expenses. Not really growth material and I’m quite confident will not make us cheaper than skywest.​

 

[aircombat]

I wouldn’t exactly say I am just throwing things against the wall to see what sticks. It may appear that way because there is just so much negative about PBS it’s hard to know were to start. I’m also not really upset at the position I am in. Maybe a little discouraged but I’ll be better off than a lot of people. I would not be upset if PBS was offered and an accurate picture painted of what it entails. That will not happen though because for some reason our union feels like it needs to take a bias side and use deception to sell it. Then you add many examples like this

I am irked that the Company and the Union seem to assume that PBS passing a vote is a done deal. Both would be well served to bear in mind that PBS isn't a fact of life at ASA until the votes are counted. I admit that this tenet is petty, but I am annoyed that The Company has already migrated back to Flica on the assumption that PBS will pass. I was particularly vexed by the Union shills I overheard on the bus, deeply engaged in a mutual admiration autoerotic love fest on the matter of how awesome it will be when PBS gets here. It isn't voted on yet, fellas. Maybe the Union should spend a little less time patting themselves on the back, and a little more time selling it to the people who pay them with their Union dues.

and I get upset to the point that I feel like I need to get involved. I'm trying to listen for positive points about PBS. And I always have agreed there are some. However, most people just say "I like the language in this LOA". I was hearing that before the LOA was even out. What does that say?

 

[buscap]

Anyone who likes the language in the PBS LOA is smoking crack. Too many non binding sentences, just like our contract. That being said, most of the non-binders I see already exist in our current contract, a contract which I believe to be industry leading in many ways.

The question in most folks minds seems to be "Are we getting enough in trade for the PBS LOA?"

I believe this is the wrong question. The bribes are not worth poop, compared to the impact of PBS on our pay and QOL. Therefore the questions should concern the PBS itself.

Questions like:

Is it a better way to bid?

Will it lower costs?

Will PBS mean less or more days off?

How will it affect vacation?

Will it help us grow someday?

Does it give me less or more control over my schedule?

Is reserve bidding improved as it relates to PBS? If so, how much?

Does it get rid of integration?

Is open time improved?

How does the PBS LOA stack up against the industry?

All of the other questions from the pay raise to an overall restructuring of reserve, are irrelevant to me. Even a 5% raise would not make a stinking PBS system worth it.

And anyone on reserve who would fall for a reserve overhaul bribe would be fairly peeved when they find most of their career is not on reserve.

I think the PBS LOA is a better way to bid, which will make us more competitive, give most pilots a better QOL, and which stacks up very well against the other systems out there. The rest is extraneous.

If anyone votes yes because of the extraneous stuff in the LOA, they are making a mistake.

If anyone votes no because of a lack of extraneous enhancements or bribes in the LOA, they are making a mistake.

This thing has got to stand or fall on it's own.

 

[sweptback]

Anyone who likes the language in the PBS LOA is smoking crack. Too many non binding sentences, just like our contract.

What do you mean? The only non-binding stuff I see is about pairing construction, which is mitigated by the fact that we have a hard cap (60%) on 4-day trips and that a union rep will be heavily involved in trip construction. There's no such involvement now.

 

[aircombat]

What do you mean? The only non-binding stuff I see is about pairing construction, which is mitigated by the fact that we have a hard cap (60%) on 4-day trips and that a union rep will be heavily involved in trip construction. There's no such involvement now.

Explain to us how having a 60% cap on 4 days is going to mitigate pairing construction? For one thing that doesn’t mean your going to get 40% 3 days, and also none of that has anything to do with pairing construction. We can get bad 4 days, 3 days, 2 days, or day lines.
Sayings like “heavily involved” or my favorite "will be taken into consideration" are non binding. The PWG is a joke, designed to give you a false sense of control.

 

[sweptback]

Explain to us how having a 60% cap on 4 days is going to mitigate pairing construction? For one thing that doesn’t mean your going to get 40% 3 days, and also none of that has anything to do with pairing construction. We can get bad 4 days, 3 days, 2 days, or day lines.
Sayings like “heavily involved” or my favorite "will be taken into consideration" are non binding. The PWG is a joke, designed to give you a false sense of control.

13.C.1.b is non-binding, sure, but the ALPA rep has access to the pairing generator software and can suggest better ways to do things. Can the company ignore him? Sure. But that's a power that we didn't have before. If he suggests a way to be more efficient and yet get better QOL, how could the company turn that down?

And the PWG most definitely does have control over the process. We have the strongest language in the industry when it comes to that, if you don't believe me do your own research (all contracts are easily available for review). If that's not good enough for you, what is?

By the way, the only language that I saw in the document that had anything other than absolute language was that section. There are other sections that give the company control over aspects, but that was a design decision by the PWG from what I understand.

 

[aircombat]

I see the PWG as the way the company directly paid off the union. The PWG will be able to “work” 18 days and get credited for 6 hours each day. It says that the “work” will generally be conducted at A-tech however, “exceptions may be reached by mutual agreement for weekends, holidays, and/or schedule conflicts“(13.B.3.c).

Can I apply for the PWG? Probably not since the union will appoint the members. What do you think I would do. Work hard trying to generate pairings that would just be rejected? I don’t think so. I’m going to be doing the “work” at the golf course or the lake on the weekends and holidays. I doubt scheduling would have a problem with having the PWG out of their office.

 

[Speedtape]

Anyone who likes the language in the PBS LOA is smoking crack. Too many non binding sentences, just like our contract. That being said, most of the non-binders I see already exist in our current contract, a contract which I believe to be industry leading in many ways.

The question in most folks minds seems to be "Are we getting enough in trade for the PBS LOA?"

I believe this is the wrong question. The bribes are not worth poop, compared to the impact of PBS on our pay and QOL. Therefore the questions should concern the PBS itself.

Questions like:

Is it a better way to bid? Yes! It puts more power in the hands of the bidder! If nothing else, you will have more control over which days off you have.

Will it lower costs? YES! Time will be forced down to lower hourly pay pilots, because every one will be flying 75 hours or less for now--more regular lines, less reserves. Limited ability to build line above 75 hours because there will be very little open time left over(more lines to spread the time).

Will PBS mean less or more days off? You will be guaranteed 11 days off in 30 day months, and 12 off in 31 day months. A Pilot's ability to get more days off will depend on the trip values and what he can bid on his line. In today's world of overstaffing, a good guess would be most lines will have 4 4-day trips. This would leave 14 days off in a 30 day month, and 15 days off in a 31 day month.

How will it affect vacation? It appears that vacation in the PBS world, as compared to the line bidding world, will change slightly. The PWG did a good job of tackling this issue as compared to some other properties. The Pilot will still have an ability to increase his days off on either side of the footprint, or maximize pay with just the footprint if he wants to make bucks.

Will it help us grow someday? There are no guarantees to growth! However, PBS will help us grow efficiently. More work can be done with less pilots.

Does it give me less or more control over my schedule? It should give you more control over your schedule because you will have more control in bidding--especially when you need specific days off! You will be bidding on trips and not lines, so you should be able to have a greater degree of control of specific days off and how many off in a row! However, to some degree your seniority may be limiting. However, there are some pilots that may be able to get a specific weekend or weekend day off that can not do that today because lines are usually built in patterns under our current "line bidding."

Is reserve bidding improved as it relates to PBS? If so, how much? It appears that there were some improvements made in Reserve Bidding. A Reserve Pilot will be able to bid a preassigned line with GDO's and on-call periods already assigned. (Some will like this and some want). BUT, importantly, Reserves will be used in a more limited role as compared to today. They will mostly be used to cover sick calls which means that assignments will be limited to the longest pairing--4 day trips!

Does it get rid of integration? YES! There will be no more integration because PBS will not award trips that create conflicts. Those first 3 days will no longer be a mystery.

Is open time improved? This is a Yes answer, with a caveat! There will be very little, if any open time left over--as compared to today, most trips will be assigned because there will be more regular lines awarded. Forget OPEN TIME as you know it. But, there were some improvements,

How does the PBS LOA stack up against the industry? No matter what they tell you, PBS is concessionary--at least to some pilots in your company. PBS gives the Company the ability to control, manage, and distribute the monthly block hours in each position in an even manner. In an overstaffed condition, it allows a "leveling" affect that spreads the hours evenly over the available pilots(Total in each position, less Reserves). Most likely, based on other models, 90% of the pilots in each position will get a near "equal assignment" of the monthly flying. The other 10%(+ or - a % or two) will be assigned/awarded Reserve to cover sick calls and IROPS. NOW--to answer your question: It appears as though you may start out with a better PBS because of the research and what was negotiated. However, it is still concessionary!

All of the other questions from the pay raise to an overall restructuring of reserve, are irrelevant to me. Even a 5% raise would not make a stinking PBS system worth it.

And anyone on reserve who would fall for a reserve overhaul bribe would be fairly peeved when they find most of their career is not on reserve.

I think the PBS LOA is a better way to bid, which will make us more competitive, give most pilots a better QOL, and which stacks up very well against the other systems out there. The rest is extraneous.

If anyone votes yes because of the extraneous stuff in the LOA, they are making a mistake. I agree, wholeheartedly! Look closely--there is not much there.

If anyone votes no because of a lack of extraneous enhancements or bribes in the LOA, they are making a mistake.

This thing has got to stand or fall on it's own.

I agree! However, it's still PBS--concessionary! Why does Southwest and American not have PBS? It's concessionary as compared to the current Section 13. Consider that when you vote for it! However, Inc., wants it badly, and you will be punished if it is voted down!

 

[buscap]

Speedtape,

I was being rhetorical, but thanks for the (or your) answers.

 

[Tarzan]

I agree! However, it's still PBS--concessionary! Why does Southwest and American not have PBS? It's concessionary as compared to the current Section 13. Consider that when you vote for it! However, Inc., wants it badly, and you will be punished if it is voted down!

I honestly don't see this as concessionary with this system. It is basically what we do now except with a system that lets you choose where you fly to more of a degree in regards to seniority.
If this goes down, I am 100% sure we won't see a system this good in Sec 6. ALPA were not under and legal constraints when they negotiated this LOA. Under Sec 6 we could likely have another a "suckier" system forced on us unless we are will to make extreme concessions to get the current operating system. The company will come out with PBS next time around. Count on it. The ball is in our court regarding the work rules and system we end up with. I'd rather take it now than lose what has been worked on for the last year and then fix the holes in the next contract. I have to believe it will be much easier to to fix problems that it will be to negotiate a complete system again. Less capital expended to get the something we already secured outside Sec 6 is in our benefit now.

 

[Jack-O-Lantern]

I honestly don't see this as concessionary with this system. It is basically what we do now except with a system that lets you choose where you fly to more of a degree in regards to seniority.
If this goes down, I am 100% sure we won't see a system this good in Sec 6. ALPA were not under and legal constraints when they negotiated this LOA. Under Sec 6 we could likely have another a "suckier" system forced on us unless we are will to make extreme concessions to get the current operating system. The company will come out with PBS next time around. Count on it. The ball is in our court regarding the work rules and system we end up with. I'd rather take it now than lose what has been worked on for the last year and then fix the holes in the next contract. I have to believe it will be much easier to to fix problems that it will be to negotiate a complete system again. Less capital expended to get the something we already secured outside Sec 6 is in our benefit now.

Folks, this is the bottom line right here!
Read it twice if you must,whatever it takes to sink in!

 

[Tarzan]

I honestly don't see this as concessionary with this system. It is basically what we do now except with a system that lets you choose where you fly to more of a degree in regards to seniority.
If this goes down, I am 100% sure we won't see a system this good in Sec 6. ALPA was not under any legal constraints when they negotiated this LOA. Under Sec 6 we could likely get a "suckier" system forced on us unless we are willing to make extreme concessions to get the current operating system. I don't want to concede anything if we can help it. The company will come out with PBS next time around. Count on it. The ball is in our court regarding the work rules and system we end up with. I'd rather take it now than lose what has been worked on for the last year and then fix the holes in the next contract. I have to believe it will be much easier to to fix problems than it will be to negotiate a complete system again. Less capital expended to get the something we already secured outside Sec 6 is in our benefit now. This lets ALPA work on other things we would like to to see fixed.


I don't believe the first post was even English. I probably should learn to proof read before I click the button.

 

[aircombat]

I honestly don't see this as concessionary with this system.

More work can be done with less pilots.

Having to work more is concretionary for a lot of people.

I’m not really seeing how this LOA makes our PBS industry leading. For the most part concerning PBS it just says, your getting it. Maybe with vacation being the exception, and I haven’t heard anyone say that no other airline has vacation language, the rest has nothing to do with PBS or is simply inconsequential. If this went to section 6 and came out with no vacation language I don’t really foresee a yes vote. Also your beloved PWG is going to be credited at least 108 hrs a month, really have no input, and have the ability to get paid weekends off.

 

[aircombat]

Tarzan, why no comment on the research you requested about our expenses. Is it because my math was a little off? I realize that and apologize. I was doing it in my head and I ended up with a way to conservative number. Really our expenses would be over $800 Million, however that might also be a little conservative. Either way it will save the company around 1% or less.

 

[Tarzan]

Having to work more is concretionary for a lot of people.

I’m not really seeing how this LOA makes our PBS industry leading. For the most part concerning PBS it just says, your getting it. Maybe with vacation being the exception, and I haven’t heard anyone say that no other airline has vacation language, the rest has nothing to do with PBS or is simply inconsequential. If this went to section 6 and came out with no vacation language I don’t really foresee a yes vote. Also your beloved PWG is going to be credited at least 108 hrs a month, really have no input, and have the ability to get paid weekends off.

Beloved huh? Go volunteer/ apply for it. If you want DNs number, I'll find it and send it to you. I don't know what you're talking about exactly but the trainers will have that for a month. The PWG that works on the bid runs will probably get a week to do that stuff. By all means, go talk to Newie.

The aspects that make this LOA industry leading are:
Done outside Sec 6 and bankruptcy giving the pilot group ALL the leverage.
Includes hard language on a limit of four day trips.
Gives veto power to pilot group on bid run solutions.
Getting language that at least gives access to and building trips to and make suggestions.
Using a system that did exist a couple of years ago. It is good enough that the Delta pilots are looking at going after this system as well.

Looking outside the nuts and bolts of the PBS, ALPA was able to secure increases and not decreases in a concessionary environment. Go to the road show and take look. Those guys have spent a year working on the stuff and researching what other pilot groups said didn't work. This wasn't thrown together on a whim.

 

[USCtrojan]

Tarzan, why no comment on the research you requested about our expenses. Is it because my math was a little off? I realize that and apologize. I was doing it in my head and I ended up with a way to conservative number. Really our expenses would be over $800 Million, however that might also be a little conservative. Either way it will save the company around 1% or less.

While I find a few of your points valid, the vast majority of your posts grasp at the unattainable. You basically want 25 years of seniority with 4 years of service, or however long you've been here. ASA is not a money tree, its a working business in a cut throat industry. The only way your gonna get what you want, is by..... 1) Seniority, 2) Rapid and extensive growth, or 3) You go into business for yourself and start your own airline. Good luck with that last option.

Trojan

 

[aircombat]

Tarzan, I do thank you for offering something better than just “I like the language“. I don’t think I have much of a chance to become a member of the PWG. Since they are appointed by the union I’m suspecting that the union members will appoint themselves. Then they can get paid for union work and PWG pay as well.

Beloved huh? Go volunteer/ apply for it. If you want DNs number, I'll find it and send it to you. I don't know what you're talking about exactly but the trainers will have that for a month. The PWG that works on the bid runs will probably get a week to do that stuff. By all means, go talk to Newie.

The aspects that make this LOA industry leading are:
Done outside Sec 6 and bankruptcy giving the pilot group ALL the leverage. I don’t know if I would say ALL the leverage. A union member once told me that we only have leverage if we threaten to strike.
Includes hard language on a limit of four day trips. This could come back to bite you. What if the other 40% are day lines. Just saying it doesn’t guarantee an increase in 3 days.
Gives veto power to pilot group on bid run solutions. It’s my understanding with PBS for just about all the pilots there should be only 1 solution. It would just leave wiggle room for people that leave a vague or default bid. Those people will be left with junk anyway and then if the PWG doesn’t like what the company comes up with it will come down to a coin toss.
Getting language that at least gives access to and building trips to and make suggestions. Non binding
Using a system that did exist a couple of years ago. It is good enough that the Delta pilots are looking at going after this system as well. Do you mean they want the program that we will be using. Because there is little in this LOA about PBS. The only real positive is the vacation and you didn’t even mention it. Don’t worry I got your back. Just because it’s better than Delta’s PBS doesn’t make it industry leading.

Looking outside the nuts and bolts of the PBS, ALPA was able to secure increases and not decreases in a concessionary environment. Go to the road show and take look. Those guys have spent a year working on the stuff and researching what other pilot groups said didn't work. This wasn't thrown together on a whim.

 

[aircombat]

While I find a few of your points valid, the vast majority of your posts grasp at the unattainable. You basically want 25 years of seniority with 4 years of service, or however long you've been here. ASA is not a money tree, its a working business in a cut throat industry. The only way your gonna get what you want, is by..... 1) Seniority, 2) Rapid and extensive growth, or 3) You go into business for yourself and start your own airline. Good luck with that last option.

Trojan

I don’t know what I have stated that is unattainable. I have been pointing out that you guys are trying to obtain the unattainable. Growth from PBS is unattainable. Forcing a merger is the only hope for growth. Why don’t we get to vote on that.
Remember the current system favors the senior.

 

[USCtrojan]

I don’t know what I have stated that is unattainable. I have been pointing out that you guys are trying to obtain the unattainable. Growth from PBS is unattainable. Forcing a merger is the only hope for growth. Why don’t we get to vote on that.
Remember the current system favors the senior.

I totally agree on the OneList issue. That is our best scenario for job security and an end to whipsaw. What can we do to get it? I've spoken to the newly Captain Rep and FO Rep and they seem for it too. Problem lies in what we have to give up to get it. At the very least we need to have dialogue with the SkyWest pilots. I don't believe we have any contact with any SAPA reps.

Schedules should favor the Senior folks. Are we to award in reverse order? More days off and first pick in Seniority order. I don't know many people who oppose this.

Trojan

 

[aircombat]

I totally agree on the OneList issue. That is our best scenario for job security and an end to whipsaw. What can we do to get it? I've spoken to the newly Captain Rep and FO Rep and they seem for it too. Problem lies in what we have to give up to get it. At the very least we need to have dialogue with the SkyWest pilots. I don't believe we have any contact with any SAPA reps.

Schedules should favor the Senior folks. Are we to award in reverse order? More days off and first pick in Seniority order. I don't know many people who oppose this.

Trojan

The real problem lies in what we will have to give up if we don’t get it. You’ll still lose alpa if we shrink to nonexistence. Every day that we lose a pilot there could be one less alpa member. Nothing says that we will lose alpa if we merge, but it is a risk. Everything is about balancing risk and it is far riskier for us to not merge.

I don’t know why we would have to start a dialogue with Skywest pilots or SAPA. They don’t really have representation so we would have to deal with Inc directly. Waiting for Skywest to get representation is a bad idea as well. We would lose a lot of leverage. Unfortunately they would probably seek representation from alpa at the first sign of us forcing a merger.

Every day we operate in this fashion the union loses face. To allow a non union company to prosper while the unionized sister company lays off seams against everything a union is about. We will continue to be made an example of until we actually stand up and decide to do something about it or wither on the vine.

No company can prevent a union. At the very worse we would have to revote under a combined list.

I’m not going to even comment on the “award in reverse order” comment. I don’t even know were you got the idea that I think like that.

 

[USCtrojan]

The real problem lies in what we will have to give up if we don’t get it. You’ll still lose alpa if we shrink to nonexistence. Every day that we lose a pilot there could be one less alpa member. Nothing says that we will lose alpa if we merge, but it is a risk. Everything is about balancing risk and it is far riskier for us to not merge.

I don’t know why we would have to start a dialogue with Skywest pilots or SAPA. They don’t really have representation so we would have to deal with Inc directly. Waiting for Skywest to get representation is a bad idea as well. We would lose a lot of leverage. Unfortunately they would probably seek representation from alpa at the first sign of us forcing a merger.

Every day we operate in this fashion the union loses face. To allow a non union company to prosper while the unionized sister company lays off seams against everything a union is about. We will continue to be made an example of until we actually stand up and decide to do something about it or wither on the vine.

No company can prevent a union. At the very worse we would have to revote under a combined list.

I’m not going to even comment on the “award in reverse order” comment. I don’t even know were you got the idea that I think like that.

I don't have a problem with losing ALPA if there's OneList. I believe OneList should be our top priority, dam the rest. All other statements you made regarding losing ALPA I agree with assuming OneList. I don't mind having to sacrifice to get OneList, but I am 1 of 1600.....

We have to start somewhere regarding OneList. That start is beginning a dialogue with SkyWest pilots. So far, there's been none to my knowledge. I don't believe mgmt wants us talking because it can only benefit the pilot group as a whole (divide and conquer). We have to find a way to benefit everyone and that can only happen with dialogue. We take that information and we go to mgmt with it.

If Jerry decided to merge the lists, there would be a representational vote. There would be a little bit of time ALPA would advertise why we should have them and the Company would advertise why we should remain Union free.

"Remember the current system favors the Senior." How else would you build a system?

Trojan

 

[aircombat]

I don't have a problem with losing ALPA if there's OneList. I believe OneList should be our top priority, dam the rest. All other statements you made regarding losing ALPA I agree with assuming OneList. I don't mind having to sacrifice to get OneList, but I am 1 of 1600.....

We have to start somewhere regarding OneList. That start is beginning a dialogue with SkyWest pilots. So far, there's been none to my knowledge. I don't believe mgmt wants us talking because it can only benefit the pilot group as a whole (divide and conquer). We have to find a way to benefit everyone and that can only happen with dialogue. We take that information and we go to mgmt with it.

If Jerry decided to merge the lists, there would be a representational vote. There would be a little bit of time ALPA would advertise why we should have them and the Company would advertise why we should remain Union free.

Again I don’t know why you think it is necessary to open a dialogue with the Skywest pilots. They have no representation. We would be dealing directly with Inc. I’m sure that a dialogue would start once they knew what our intentions were. I do agree that management would be strongly against this. That’s why waiting around for a miracle, or pretending they will give us growth out of the kindness of their own heart even though we are more expensive than Skywest, is a big mistake.

If you think that we could create a merger that would benefit everyone you haven’t witnessed many mergers. There will be no shortage of people that believe that they should be senior to you, even though they were hired well after you. Most of their reasoning will be around accomplishments that their management has made, thinking that it should directly reflect upon themselves. That’s why it would be good if we could do this without their voices being heard. Like I said since they have no representation they really don’t have to be in the picture.

I’m not saying it would be easy to do but waiting around until we grow weak will only make it harder.

"Remember the current system favors the Senior." How else would you build a system?

Trojan

I wouldn’t build a system. The one that we have now works just fine. Maybe you could add a 3 day min to it.

 

[aircombat]

Here is what we should do.
1). Vote no on this LOA for many reasons.
2). Express our intentions to the union that we want a merger since they don’t seem to want to find out how many people are interested in that
3). The union will be able to use PBS and the threat of a strike as leverage for a favorable merger
4). We actually have a chance at growth.