Pinnacle guys....

Raoul Duke

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Posts
932
Total Time
18000
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

Zulu who?
Joined
May 25, 2003
Posts
2,593
Total Time
9000
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

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2006
Posts
1,563
Total Time
6500

Rez O. Lewshun

Save the Profession
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Posts
13,422
Total Time
X>X
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

Well-known member
Joined
May 12, 2004
Posts
804
Total Time
A lot.
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

Save the Profession
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Posts
13,422
Total Time
X>X
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

Active member
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Posts
27
Total Time
?
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.
 
Last edited:

Rez O. Lewshun

Save the Profession
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Posts
13,422
Total Time
X>X
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

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Posts
932
Total Time
18000
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.
 

COOPERVANE

Member since 1967
Joined
Mar 2, 2002
Posts
2,167
Total Time
<8000
#1. You guys need the rigs. It made alot of difference with ASA crew planning dept. Fewer inefficient trips. Still some, but fewer.

#2. Always turn down the first offer.


By the way, I'm glad you could care less, that means you still care a little for the collective good of a unionized industry, and that means alot.
 

JustaNumber

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Posts
922
Total Time
5000
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.
I'm not saying you are, but if you voted for a large paycut and no work rule improvements in order to secure the bulk of all future flying to promote your own career, the rest of us would not be happy, and you would hear about it for the rest of your career as well. So, you do need to consider how your contract fits in with raising, lowering, or at least maintaining industry standards.
 

Andy Neill

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
2,293
Total Time
6200
Thanks for posting that. I caught only the last 10 minutes last night and din't want to get up at O dark thirty to see the beginning.

I found one particular area interesting when there appeared to be an effort on the part of one Senator and echoed by Sen Dorgan in his closing remarks that there was a correlation between safety and pay. Had I been in the wirness seat, I might have pointed out that majors and regionals can meet the FAA standards for certification and flight experience by hiring 200 hour first officers and making them captains at 1500 hours. Market forces - not FAA standards - result in the average mainline newhire having more flight time than the average regional newhire and the average mainline captain having more time than the average regional captain.

The same could be seen within a major airline. I would venture to say that the average 777 captain has more experience than the average 737 captain would and so on.

If the FAA does not feel comfortable with 200 hour pilots being on the flight deck, they should raise the minimum standard.
 

pipejockey

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2003
Posts
1,041
Total Time
0-9000
I wanted to spit right in this Trennery clowns face! So 12 years ago PCL CA's earned 36K while now they earn 64K? No sh*t!! Funny how he didn't explain to the Senators that pay is based on size of the aircraft and the size has gone up since 1997. So it had nothing to do with the decency of management to do the right thing, but merely to an average size increase of the aircraft. The puke also said there were 12 ready reserve pilots in EWR at the airport the night of the Colgan debacle. I had no idea a regional airline staffed itself so well! BTW, 36 grand in 1997 merely adjusted for inflation is 50 grand. So I really hope the senators are not snookered into believing the horsesh*t that was spewing from those vile sob's!!

I hope these misleading and outright false comments that were stated by the 4 pieces of garbage that testified there were called out and corrected by people that can actually speak with some honesty in regards to the profession.
 
Last edited:

Rez O. Lewshun

Save the Profession
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Posts
13,422
Total Time
X>X
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.
No concern of the Mesa stigma?
 

dondk

Don't you wish
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
887
Total Time
enuf
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.
the problem really is there is not much to trade for. When the current CBA (to use PCL_128) is 10 steps behind everyone else. To trade you need something, what does the current CBA have that is worth while? Maybe Vacation slides?

Perhaps the NC from '05 should not have been so anxious to TA 75% of the sections. This is going to get interesting IF the TA is put out and the road shows begin.
 
Top