No comment on ASA PBS LOA yet?

[GeekMaster]

He's using them as martyrs.

I think aircombat has made it abundantly clear that he supports killing the LOA NO MATTER HOW GOOD IT MAY BE. None of us will change his mind.

The important thing is he has now totally exposed the sole foundation of his argument. I think ANYBODY who is still giving valid consideration to how they will vote will understand that holding this LOA as ransom for a later gain instead of considering it on its own merit is a STUPID GAME to play with ones career.

Let me make it clear though. For those of you who read the agreement, go to a roadshow, and come to your own conclusion that you can't support it based on what's in it (its own merit), I respect you for that. I disagree with you, but at least you made an informed decision.

 

[aircombat]

they will spend a lot less in 18 months of talks then they will if they have to pay for an improved PBS system, pay raises, and bonuses to all the pilots.

 

[PCL_128]

You guys are obviously wasting your time. You're arguing with a guy that freely admitted a few posts ago that he "knows nothing about contract negotiations," but here he is arguing about contract negotiations. He doesn't understand where leverage comes from, doesn't understand how the mediator looks at things, and doesn't understand how the NMB attempts to resolve cases. Quite simply, he's ignorant, and apparently has no desire to become informed.

Don't waste your time on him.

 

[Speedtape]

AMEN, Brother! He must be Italian!

 

[aircombat]

You guys are obviously wasting your time. You're arguing with a guy that freely admitted a few posts ago that he "knows nothing about contract negotiations," but here he is arguing about contract negotiations. He doesn't understand where leverage comes from, doesn't understand how the mediator looks at things, and doesn't understand how the NMB attempts to resolve cases. Quite simply, he's ignorant, and apparently has no desire to become informed.

Don't waste your time on him.

Good again with the intimidation. It’s worked for you before so why not. I didn’t say I know nothing so that’s a miss quote, however what should I expect from a union guy. Sadly you make it sound like I know more than you.

 

[aircombat]

I think aircombat has made it abundantly clear that he supports killing the LOA NO MATTER HOW GOOD IT MAY BE. None of us will change his mind.

The important thing is he has now totally exposed the sole foundation of his argument. I think ANYBODY who is still giving valid consideration to how they will vote will understand that holding this LOA as ransom for a later gain instead of considering it on its own merit is a STUPID GAME to play with ones career.

Let me make it clear though. For those of you who read the agreement, go to a roadshow, and come to your own conclusion that you can't support it based on what's in it (its own merit), I respect you for that. I disagree with you, but at least you made an informed decision.

I do plan to attend a roadshow however it will be taken with a grain of salt. We are already aware that the union is going to be completely biased on this. If the union wanted to convince me that they are impartial then they need to assign a union official to debate the negative side of this LOA. That won’t happen thou. We have seen this before. All cons will have to be solicited by regular pilots and to think we will be able to find even the majority of the faults in a system that none of us are familiar with is a pipedream. The few faults that are exposed will be downplayed, ignored, or the subject changed by the salesman on the soapbox.

When are we going to be given this LOA? We have trouble understanding some things in the line bidding contracts and PBS is totally new. This sales tactic is going to be filled with flat out lies, half truths, exaggerations, down plays, smoke and mirrors, intimidation, and false promises. People will be hesitant to even speak up if they find a fault because they will become belittled. We have seen that as well. I don’t know how you expect to leave a roadshow with a completely informed, impartial view. Only a handful will even read the LOA so they will be given an injustice by being subject the this one sided rhetoric.

So holding PBS ransom until section 6 is a stupid game? We should just pass the ball to the other side of the court because we are afraid. We have no remorse about voting pilots jobs away but god forbid we use PBS to our advantage in section 6.

 

[aircombat]

They still have to keep the same amount of people on the payroll, due to the no-furlough clause. Plus, name one airline in the history of the industry that has shrunk to profitability. Do you understand what happens when an airline shrinks? Have you ever studied the history of our industry?

Most of the majors have been shrinking to profitability for some time now. PBS requires less pilots so we will save money if we shrink or grow.

I find your support for our furlough pilots noble, but why do you seem to value the 156 furloughed over the 1500 active pilots? Are you yourself furloughed?

As one PBS supporter pointed out earlier. This does not really save the company that much so to think this might end the company is ridiculous. I hope you are not eluding that PBS might favor all 1500 pilots schedule wise because we all know that's not the case. and yes I would take a slightly less flexible schedule in order not to dissolve peoples jobs.

 

[OCP]

Aircombat is not going to go to a road show and "take it with a grain of salt". He has made up his mind and continues to argue like he knows what he is saying even though many others who have actually been in the process continue to shoot his arguments down. Shrinking to profitibility is the stupidest thing in the business world, especially for an airline. (ask ANY business educator why that is bad).
PBS aside and what PBS will or won't do to grow or shrink the company, there are really good improvements that I have seen in the LOA. For anyone who has had to deal with reserve for the past few years there are VAST improvements to that section. Hate red arrow days? The system will improve that. Hate 4 days? There will only be 60% of them AT MOST. ASA has no control at how the days will be constructed. That will be Flightline's computers and your preferences relating to seniority all filtered through this industry leading PBS language.
You want to know the "bad" about the deal. Actually TALK to a union rep who worked on this. They will tell you. They're not trying to hide anything.

 

[aircombat]

Aircombat is not going to go to a road show and "take it with a grain of salt". He has made up his mind and continues to argue like he knows what he is saying even though many others who have actually been in the process continue to shoot his arguments down. Shrinking to profitibility is the stupidest thing in the business world, especially for an airline. (ask ANY business educator why that is bad).
PBS aside and what PBS will or won't do to grow or shrink the company, there are really good improvements that I have seen in the LOA. For anyone who has had to deal with reserve for the past few years there are VAST improvements to that section. Hate red arrow days? The system will improve that. Hate 4 days? There will only be 60% of them AT MOST. ASA has no control at how the days will be constructed. That will be Flightline's computers and your preferences relating to seniority all filtered through this industry leading PBS language.
You want to know the "bad" about the deal. Actually TALK to a union rep who worked on this. They will tell you. They're not trying to hide anything.

I keep having words put in my mouth that I haven’t said. First I never said this isn’t a good PBS system, it might be. I don’t know how you guys have read this LOA, where is it? Secondly I haven’t said that the Union officials are not more experienced at this, I believe they are. Unfortunately they are the same as all of you and are going to look out for number one. I don’t know what their alternative motive is, but from my position it appears that they must get some benefits from having a drawn out section 6 negotiation.

 

[aircombat]

Aircombat is not going to go to a road show and "take it with a grain of salt". He has made up his mind and continues to argue like he knows what he is saying even though many others who have actually been in the process continue to shoot his arguments down. Shrinking to profitibility is the stupidest thing in the business world, especially for an airline. (ask ANY business educator why that is bad).

With a Grain of Salt (definition)

"You should take what you hear and evaluate it on your own, don't take it for being the truth or correct. The phrase is usually used when a person it giving you the 'low down' on what another person has told you. It is a warning that what that person has said, or may say, is not necessarily correct and accurate."

Shrinking to profitability has been the popular buisness model lately. The
recession doesn't help. What do you want them to do grow out of profitability. Are these layoffs just a figment of my imagination?
Less planes, less pilots = fuller planes, more profit.

 

[aircombat]

You guys will be pleased to hear that I’m done arguing this issue. I’m tired of words being put in my mouth and talking to people that take everything on blind faith.
Whether we get PBS or not, have a long section 6 negotiation or short is all a moot point. We are going to shrink until we are more manageable either way. Were do you guys think those 4 aircraft are going in the spring. Merry Christmas Skywest. I suppose if it was 5 aircraft some eyebrows would raise, but 4 is the perfect number. Read the contract at aircraft 5 they have to transfer 10 pilots form ASA to Skywest. At least it sounds like maybe 3 furloughees might get a job when Skywest starts hiring in the spring. I would rather see those jobs go to the furloughees then you selfish fools.
Forcing a merger with Skywest now would be our only chance. Otherwise we are going to be shrunk while Skywest grows. We will become increasingly desperate and nearly ready to negotiate a staple. Then Skywest will get a union and all of our leverage will be gone.
Why would ASA want to take a bad merger. Because of 10 years of stagnation and by then we will be much smaller. Why would Skywest want to merge with ASA? Because it would be on their terms which would be at the very least a partial staple. Meaning instant seniority boost for many.

 

[PCL_128]

Secondly I haven’t said that the Union officials are not more experienced at this, I believe they are. Unfortunately they are the same as all of you and are going to look out for number one. I don’t know what their alternative motive is, but from my position it appears that they must get some benefits from having a drawn out section 6 negotiation.

I'm not one of your union reps. In fact, I'm not even an ASA pilot. I'm just an experienced ALPA rep from another airline that's been through a couple of Section 6 processes and knows how this whole thing really works. I have nothing to gain by leading you astray or convincing you to sign a bad deal. I'm just giving you an honest unbiased assessment. If you don't want to listen to it, then that's your business.

 

[Jack-O-Lantern]

AMEN, Brother! He must be Italian!

I'm thinking Moron would better fit!

 

[Oakum_Boy]

Less planes, less pilots = fuller planes, more profit.

Lets examine this equation:


Fewer planes= more profit

That is false.

Full planes = more profit

That is false unless fares aren't lowered.

Fewer pilots = full planes

That is false.

Fewer planes = full planes

That is true in theory.


Overall, decent work.

C+

 

[WhendoIgetpaid]

ASA has been at the negotiating table with management multiple times. We often ask management for contract improvements based on things we see in other airlines' contracts. It stands to reason that they should be able to ask for a change that benefits them, when other airlines have it. ASA exists to make money, to profit.
I am not voting for anything that is complete crap but I will be opened-minded about it for the road shows.

 

[Speedtape]

I keep having words put in my mouth that I haven’t said. First I never said this isn’t a good PBS system, it might be. I don’t know how you guys have read this LOA, where is it? Secondly I haven’t said that the Union officials are not more experienced at this, I believe they are. Unfortunately they are the same as all of you and are going to look out for number one. I don’t know what their alternative motive is, but from my position it appears that they must get some benefits from having a drawn out section 6 negotiation.

Do you trust anyone? Paranoia, "Will" destroy ya!

Rise of the New McCarthyism--not necessarily germane to any political party, some like to paralyze progress by holding fact baseless positions and being contrarians at all costs--just as long as they can keep themselves in the spotlight and throw a monkey wrench in the works.

With 6.7 billion people in the world and 1500 pilots on the seniority list, there will be at least a few who do not agree with my position--I can accept that. Time to move on!

 

[Tarzan]

ASA has been at the negotiating table with management multiple times. We often ask management for contract improvements based on things we see in other airlines' contracts. It stands to reason that they should be able to ask for a change that benefits them, when other airlines have it. ASA exists to make money, to profit.
I am not voting for anything that is complete crap but I will be opened-minded about it for the road shows.

A fair assessment. I believe that is all the MEC guys are asking for. If they thought this was crap, I don't think it would even come to the table since they are not required to bring it to a vote.

 

[BOX OFFICE]

Do you trust anyone? Paranoia, "Will" destroy ya!

How many people has this guy accused of being "will" now? He sure seems to spend a lot of brain power thinking about that guy. I think Speedtape is in love.

 

[aircombat]

Do you trust anyone?...

No I don’t trust anyone. Everyone has a price. I’m also not paranoid I just smell a fish on this one. It’s not that I think the union is out to get us, rather that they don’t give much reason except blind faith. I know I said that I wasn’t going to write anymore about this, however upon further consideration I have decided to agree with you guys that it is possible to get a better deal on PBS outside of section 6.

Please hear me out before you pass judgment. I have always thought that the company wanted to push this through in order to keep from having to call back the furloughees. But I didn’t see what benefit that might have for the union. It is my sincere belief that the union used the furloughees in order to secure a better PBS.

I already know what you are going to say. “We are over staffed. Even if we vote no on this LOA they still won‘t be called back.” Just like the attrition thing you guys are blinded by your shortsightedness. Lets say PBS goes to section 6. How long will it be before the company gets PBS. One can only assume many years. Is it not probable that we would have the furloughees back on property in 5 years?

With the furloughees back they will run into some sticky spots. First there is the chance that PBS won’t even make it, most of them will vote no. Secondly they would not be able to sell it as “not causing any furloughs“. Finally if it did get voted in there would be the messy situation of having to re-furlough.

So if the union used the furloughees to secure a better LOA is that a good or bad thing? I don’t really know the answer to that question. If you are very senior and believe that the cat is out of the bag then it is good. Nobody wants to call people back just to re-furlough. If you are junior and don’t think the cat is out of the bag, you need to tie a cinderblock to that bag and throw the cat in the river.

The one thing I’m certain of is that the union uses lies and deception in order to get the junior guys onboard with things like this. That is what upsets me the most. I just want them to tell it the way it is and let the chips fall were they may. When they use these deceptive tactics it makes people lose faith.

 

[aircombat]

Lets examine this equation:


Fewer planes= more profit

That is false.

Full planes = more profit

That is false unless fares aren't lowered.

Fewer pilots = full planes

That is false.

Fewer planes = full planes

That is true in theory.


Overall, decent work.

C+

You are so stupid. You can’t pull the equation apart. That’s like taking 6+3=4+5 and saying that’s not true because 6 doesn’t equal 4 and 3 doesn’t equal 5. Go back to school.