No comment on ASA PBS LOA yet?

[aircombat]

I thought there might still be some ambiguity about how I believe the union could use the furloughees in order to secure a better PBS out of section 6 so I am writing this possible scenario.

Management: “PBS is out of the bag. We don’t want to be put in the situation down the road of having to re-furlough, so what can we do to get PBS pushed through before negotiations start in the summer.”

Union: (believing PBS is out of the bag) “We will push PBS through but you better meet all of our demands regarding PBS”
​

Management: “We agree to give you what you want with PBS, however it better pass before negotiations start in the summer or the offer will no longer stand and you will get ‘garbage‘”.
​

This is the only way I can think of that would allow the union to get a better deal outside of section 6. Is it not at least possible?

 

[GeekMaster]

I thought there might still be some ambiguity about how I believe the union could use the furloughees in order to secure a better PBS out of section 6 so I am writing this possible scenario.

Management: “PBS is out of the bag. We don’t want to be put in the situation down the road of having to re-furlough, so what can we do to get PBS pushed through before negotiations start in the summer.”

Union: (believing PBS is out of the bag) “We will push PBS through but you better meet all of our demands regarding PBS”
​

Management: “We agree to give you what you want with PBS, however it better pass before negotiations start in the summer or the offer will no longer stand and you will get ‘garbage‘”.
​

This is the only way I can think of that would allow the union to get a better deal outside of section 6. Is it not at least possible?

You're starting to get the point in general. Just a couple of fine tunes:

1. Furloughs weren't the "reason". In fact one of our original "demands" by ALPA was NO MORE FURLOUGHS ! So, the company slowed down on the negotiations just long enough to furlough the rest of the pilots not covered by the contract, then returned to the table and said, "Ok, no more furloughs".

2. The real inspiration behind trying to get it pushed through before Section 6 is one of mutual benefit. We want to be a major part of INC's Big Picture plan. A number of things are going to happen before we get a chance to finish section 6. They needed us to be more competitive NOW.

But in the end, your last statement is correct. ALPA believes we are in a position to get a better deal now than later.

 

[aircombat]

1. Furloughs weren't the "reason". In fact one of our original "demands" by ALPA was NO MORE FURLOUGHS ! So, the company slowed down on the negotiations just long enough to furlough the rest of the pilots not covered by the contract, then returned to the table and said, "Ok, no more furloughs".

Sounds like too little too late. I mean wow ALPA managed to negotiate no more furloughs when they can’t furlough anymore. Now that’s a victory.

2. The real inspiration behind trying to get it pushed through before Section 6 is one of mutual benefit. We want to be a major part of INC's Big Picture plan. A number of things are going to happen before we get a chance to finish section 6. They needed us to be more competitive NOW.

Many believe that it doesn’t make business sense to give more work to ASA unless we are as cheap as Skywest. Becoming cheaper then Skywest is a battle we will not win and I’m not aware of any scope against Skywest restricting them in any severe way. PBS surely is not going to make us as cheap. I’m a numbers person, if you want to convince me otherwise prove it with digits.

 

[GeekMaster]

There are multiple scenarios where INC. NEEDS 2 certificates. There are NO COMPETE clauses in their contract with United that would keep them away from certain domiciles. Our share IS out there, but not if we don't play nicely with the Utah Man.

 

[Tarzan]

Sounds like too little too late. I mean wow ALPA managed to negotiate no more furloughs when they can’t furlough anymore. Now that’s a victory.

ALPA can not walk on water. I know many people believe they can do anything the pilot group wants but it doesn't work that way. They did win a "No Displacement" clause. Is that any better?

Many believe that it doesn’t make business sense to give more work to ASA unless we are as cheap as Skywest. Becoming cheaper then Skywest is a battle we will not win and I’m not aware of any scope against Skywest restricting them in any severe way. PBS surely is not going to make us as cheap. I’m a numbers person, if you want to convince me otherwise prove it with digits.

Something that many folks don't realize is that during our tenure as a wholly owned, there were many programs put in place that were not needed and basically to pad someone's pocket. Much of that is being cut out and still goes on today. PBS is part of this but figure $25M a year if the programs that are on the chopping block, actually see the axe and PBS passes.

 

[aircombat]

Something that many folks don't realize is that during our tenure as a wholly owned, there were many programs put in place that were not needed and basically to pad someone's pocket. Much of that is being cut out and still goes on today. PBS is part of this but figure $25M a year if the programs that are on the chopping block, actually see the axe and PBS passes.

I was hopeful that by now you would see that I’m not your typical pawn and won’t fall for your deceptive tactics. Ambiguity has been used in this fashion for ages and perfected by the philosophers. Pilots want to believe in growth so you throw out some ambiguous statements and let them jump to their own conclusions. This one is riddled with ambiguity, “many programs”, “pad someone’s pocket”, “PBS is part of this figure”. The original question was how much is PBS going to save. We have to read between the lines with you guys. You come out with this $25M figure but say PBS is only part of that. Is the other part included in this LOA. If so we need details. If not it’s irrelevant to this conversation. Either way save me the ambiguity and supply some details

 

[Speedtape]

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.

How many screen names do you have?

 

[Tarzan]

I was hopeful that by now you would see that I’m not your typical pawn and won’t fall for your deceptive tactics. Ambiguity has been used in this fashion for ages and perfected by the philosophers. Pilots want to believe in growth so you throw out some ambiguous statements and let them jump to their own conclusions. This one is riddled with ambiguity, “many programs”, “pad someone’s pocket”, “PBS is part of this figure”. The original question was how much is PBS going to save. We have to read between the lines with you guys. You come out with this $25M figure but say PBS is only part of that. Is the other part included in this LOA. If so we need details. If not it’s irrelevant to this conversation. Either way save me the ambiguity and supply some details

I toss this number out to illustrate the company is after other things that won't cost us any skin while lowering our costs. Deceptive tactics? Nothing deceptive about it. If you got involved and asked some questions from the people involved between ALPA and the company, you'd get many of these answers yourself. You might actually begin to see some continuity between the two groups. PBS savings is dynamic. ALPA has figured between 6-12M. We got about $3-3.5M. The company says $6M before concessions to ALPA.

 

[Speedtape]

I toss this number out to illustrate the company is after other things that won't cost us any skin while lowering our costs. Deceptive tactics? Nothing deceptive about it. If you got involved and asked some questions from the people involved between ALPA and the company, you'd get many of these answers yourself. You might actually begin to see some continuity between the two groups. PBS savings is dynamic. ALPA has figured between 6-12M. We got about $3-3.5M. The company says $6M before concessions to ALPA.

Hmmm! WADR, where do you think the savings are coming from? If they are saving 6-12M, rest assured a good portion of it is coming out of your pocket. So if they are saving 6-12M on payroll, and they are letting you keep $3M, that is very noble of them. Don't be suckered, there are savings and the savings, for the most part, will be derived from the pilots!

 

[Neubyfly]

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.

PCL;

You paid to work at Gulfstream didn't you? Here is a good article on your old company.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aaNPBjZ2kB54&pos=10

 

[777forever]

PCL;

You paid to work at Gulfstream didn't you? Here is a good article on your old company.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aaNPBjZ2kB54&pos=10

That argument is getting really old. Nobody cares. Be sure to thank him in a couple years when Airtran is one of the top companies to fly for.

 

[aircombat]

I toss this number out to illustrate the company is after other things that won't cost us any skin while lowering our costs. Deceptive tactics? Nothing deceptive about it. If you got involved and asked some questions from the people involved between ALPA and the company, you'd get many of these answers yourself. You might actually begin to see some continuity between the two groups. PBS savings is dynamic. ALPA has figured between 6-12M. We got about $3-3.5M. The company says $6M before concessions to ALPA.

I will agree that becoming “involved” to the point of attending all of the meetings and constantly asking questions is the only way to get both sides of these issues. Unfortunately, most of us don’t have the luxury of having the time to do that. Instead we put a lot of faith in the union and for them to take a side on issues really does us all an injustice.
Here is how even saying, “we gain to save the company about $10M” is ambiguous and deceptive. We don’t negotiate contracts by how much we save, rather how much we cost. If the union believed it was a lot of money they would put it in perspective by saying “We gain to save the company about $10M a year that is less than 1% of our annual costs”. It kind of loses its luster when you take the ambiguity away.
Now you want me to believe that the furloughs have nothing to do with pushing PBS through and this small savings is the reason. We will still be the most expensive regional however, this will secure us flying that cannot wait until section 6 so it must be arriving between now and several months? Nevertheless, there are no details and PBS will not be bound to growth. Mesa management took PBS back. If growth is so certain why can’t we bind PBS to that growth? If not I will stick with my theory.

 

[USCtrojan]

After reading the last FastRead, this deal looks industry leading. I'm looking forward to all the details.

Trojan

 

[www.]

After reading the last FastRead, this deal looks industry leading. I'm looking forward to all the details.

Trojan

Don't say that! You'll piss off all the jr guys that think it only benefits you old farts!

 

[Poppa Hodax]

After reading the last FastRead, this deal looks industry leading. I'm looking forward to all the details.

Trojan

The details are what matter. The FastRead is the shiny brochure. I'm waiting for the actual LOA.

 

[aircombat]

Don't say that! You'll piss off all the jr guys that think it only benefits you old farts!

That is because PBS by definition is bad for junior people. This LOA has been sugar coated with other things outside of PBS in order to try to distract junior people. Any part of this LOA that is good for junior people is not part of PBS and could be obtained without it.

 

[JoeMerchant]

That is because PBS by definition is bad for junior people. This LOA has been sugar coated with other things outside of PBS in order to try to distract junior people. Any part of this LOA that is good for junior people is not part of PBS and could be obtained without it.

Losing flying and not getting any new flying is also going to be bad for junior people....I'm about ready to vote no and see how things shake out....

 

[Tarzan]

That is because PBS by definition is bad for junior people. This LOA has been sugar coated with other things outside of PBS in order to try to distract junior people. Any part of this LOA that is good for junior people is not part of PBS and could be obtained without it.

Good Grief.... Do you ever grow tired of being bitter? Sugar coated? WTF isn't in any amending process? You get some good to offset the not-so-good. It is how the game is played. As a matter of fact, volunteer some time and go see how the process works. Then maybe the scales can fall off your eyes as to how things are accomplished.

 

[buscap]

Losing flying and not getting any new flying is also going to be bad for junior people....I'm about ready to vote no and see how things shake out....

Now you're trying reverse psych!!!

 

[www.]

That is because PBS by definition is bad for junior people. This LOA has been sugar coated with other things outside of PBS in order to try to distract junior people. Any part of this LOA that is good for junior people is not part of PBS and could be obtained without it.

So let's see. After initial open time, on avg, the 200 has 2000 hours open flying under the current system. Under PBS the majority of that flying would be in the pot for pilots to use to build their lines. Do the math 2000/75 hour = approx 26 additional lines of flying which means approx 26 less pilots on RES. How is that bad for the jr pilots?