Pinnacle guys....

[ualdriver]

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/i...aring_id=9287f7f2-f8d6-476f-87ab-bdaf2f7f6e35

Your CEO addressing the Senate starts at about the 14 minute mark, 44 minute mark. Some of you might find his comments interesting.

 

[Raoul Duke]

it is funny that only the chair of the committee actually sat in attendance. Look at the background, they are speaking to empty chairs and all of the congressional aids are sitting along the wall taking notes. What a joke.

 

[labbats]

I liked it when he assured the committee that he would continue to make safety a number one concern. Well, I also liked it when he said they made certain that the crews always received ample rest. No wait, I liked the break for a drink of water prior to delving into discussions of his well paid pilots.

 

[SEVEN]

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/i...aring_id=9287f7f2-f8d6-476f-87ab-bdaf2f7f6e35

Your CEO addressing the Senate starts at about the 14 minute mark, 44 minute mark. Some of you might find his comments interesting.

Not very interesting at all. Just another predictable statement from an airline CEO. By the way, did he mention Pinnacle and safety in the same sentence? Gimme a break.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

All Phildo is doing is giving the consumer what they want..... cheap tickets.....that is his job.... if the consumer really wants safety someone is going to have to mandate it... Phil is doing exactly what his investors want....and that is all he is obligated to...

 

[405]

All Phildo is doing is giving the consumer what they want..... cheap tickets.....that is his job.... if the consumer really wants safety someone is going to have to mandate it... Phil is doing exactly what his investors want....and that is all he is obligated to...

So is it the company's job to make pilots safe or is it the pilot's responsibility?

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

So is it the company's job to make pilots safe or is it the pilot's responsibility?

Does large sums of money spent toward safety increase shareholder value? We've seen quite often than corporations can't be trusted to self police and regulate....

The company will only do what is legislated.

Yet the pilots create their own Safety and Engineering department within their representational structure... That certainly isn't needed... pilots can simply threaten to strike if they don't get the wages they want...

Should the consumer be interested in safety? or is it just expected? And if so, who's obligation is it...? What is practical?

 

[Crowing Rooster]

With safety the buck stops here. Every day at work, each flight I assume it is unsafe to go until via the evidence I have at the time(I.E. preflight, mx logs, rest, wx) I am conviced it is safe and legal to go. The question is how many hoops are you going to make me jump through to acheive that objective. The more hoops I have to jump through, the more errors I correct, the less likely on time will be. Further, if every thing is not right I'm not departing period.

That being said. I do think corporate CEO's do have a legal and moral imperative to make their corporate culture one that is safe and supports safety. Some CEO's live up to that moral imperative, others may not.

One example may be crew rest, a dual responsibility. The pilot is responsible to use the time alloted to rest, and if not rested then refuse to operate the flight. The company is responsible to schedule appropriately. Scheduleing reduced rest trips makes it difficult for a pilot to obtain the rest needed. Clearly a CEO can change a practice such as this. Reduce rest was intended to be a relief for unplanned circumstances not a cost saving measure to squeeze the last oz. of productivity out of crews (so that you do not have to hire any more). Thereby saving money and increaseing profit margin for the share holders.

By the way REZ, perhaps incidental to this discussion, I look at voteing to ratify the contract the same way. It's a no go until the evidence supports an affirmative ratification vote.

One of things Wilson polling told our MEC was that we wanted duty rigs, rumor is there are no duty rigs in this contract. If that is true, that alone is enough to send it back.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

By the way REZ, perhaps incidental to this discussion, I look at voteing to ratify the contract the same way. It's a no go until the evidence supports an affirmative ratification vote.

One of things Wilson polling told our MEC was that we wanted duty rigs, rumor is there are no duty rigs in this contract. If that is true, that alone is enough to send it back.

When voting on a TA there are two criteria:

Is it good for the collective (meaning all pilots nationwide) and is it good for me individually.

If you send it back because the TA doesn't have rigs or any other item, then, ensure that you tell your NC and MC what you are willing to trade for, to get those rigs.

When sub groups start trying to negotiate with no votes it can get tricky. So if the www.swift9Epilotsfortriprigs.com votes down the TA and it comes back, with changes that mess with another sub groups wants, then they get angry....

Recall this is a negotiation not Xmas morning.. the company isn't going to give the pilots everything they want... in addition, how can a TA make every pilot happy?

Take time to digest the TA...

Consider it....

Consider it some more...

Discuss... debate....

Vote...


In general, not sure where bravado and trash talking really come into play.. especially MEC members...


This is politics and democracy.... not UFC...

 

[Raoul Duke]

When voting on a TA there are two criteria:

Is it good for the collective (meaning all pilots nationwide) and is it good for me individually.


When I am voting on a TA I could care less on what it means for all pilots nationwide. I am interested in my pilot group. I would expect no less from pilots at other carriers in return.