Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

ASA Concessions!!!

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
More thoughts

Guys/Girls,


After reading the ALPA/ASA webboard and continuing to become more informed I can say without a doubt that I would not support this proposal at all.

Some more facts:

The Company "floated" this idea at a Contract negotiation session
this was not given in writing in any way. they have done this before on other issues, and when asked for more facts and details, they say the issue is now a non issue the next time the CNC meets with the company.

Leaving section 6 officially, will allow the company to basically walk away from all TA'd sections when talks resume, as I understand it ,they would be able to say things have changed since the past and we want to start over. Delays and more delays.

We will not have a new contract in 10 months anyway, so the company can bid on the RFP based on current labor cost anyway, so this 10 month delay will not change anything.

I believe, that the company is testing the waters to see how unified we as a pilot group are, this still does not mean it is one big conspiracy, it is just the company playing poker, to see if we will show what we have, basically good business from that perspective.

We cannot risk giving up the timeline we currently are on, I think as the economy grows DAL will have no choice but to grow us with it. DCI already has a tenative plan on where the planes will go, and most likely it will remain the same if we say no thank you.


Medeco
 
Fabulous, I'm very thankful that most pilots with whom I speak these last few days have taken opposition to the contract extension. The question is how does the MEC determine what they are to do with management's proposal?? Any thoughts?? Is there to be some kind of vote or something? Whatever.
 
e120pilot,
Son, put down the crack pipe! We can get you help. Never give a concession to them. They will keep the money and still not give you the airplanes! Or, They'll give you the flying and then take it away when you won't give even more! Fight them now!
 
Good faith effort....

Some of the things that frustrate me and make me wary of management are things they could change with a phone call.

SB and DB seem like good guys to talk with them, and lately I'm impressed with the depth of the reforms they are trying to enact (ACARS if that actually happens, squaring away the fuelers, and a few other things).

Having said all of this, they could increase our QOL by making only a phone call. They could tell Crew Scheduling to straighten the he11 up and follow the contract, not to mention treat pilots with respect. But, they don't do it---if they wanted us to even CONSIDER stalling our contract, why not throw us a bone that wouldn't cost any money and would go a long way to winning good will.

Is this so unrealistic? Why won't management improve employees QOL, especially when they are already asking for favors?
 
Been workin'

Im glad after being slammed for the last couple of days, people are sarting to see the light about this proposal.

I know some would like the extra airfranmes for more "potential" positions. However arewe really ready to sacrifice QOL and the protections of section 6 negotiations to hae this.

I'm not, and I believe my MEC is not either. still have faith in their decisions, and I am sure they will press thecompany for concrete imformation about this "proposal" in three weekswhen they meet.

In talking t my rep last night, I was told tha the MEChasimformed the company that they expect them to be at this meeting, and ready to answer questions.

Final thought...I will not sell myself for a potential rowth. I am an airline pilot. And I expect to be treated and compensated as such. This "proposal" does neither.


My 2 pesos....
 
wil said:
Just read my email- NO WAY!!! They can go straight to he!! Where is that # for truckmasters?

1-800-BIG-RIGG:D :D :D

LTG
 
Fellow aviator
You never have answered my question. Did you pay for your job, you know, PFT? This seems to be the quickest way to evict you from a thread, ask you and you never return. I suppose its because the answer you will give is not one you are proud of.
 
I HAVE answered that question, and I have never been "evicted" from any thread, as you say. No, I did not "pay" for my job. Did you? Did any Southwest pilot? After all, they have to pay for their type before they are hired. And yes, it does save the company money.

Any more questions?
 
Russ, who do you fly for. I have ask you before, and you just vanish from the thread. Could that be because you are not proud of the answer you will give????
 
AFELLOWAVIATOR said:
I HAVE answered that question, and I have never been "evicted" from any thread, as you say. No, I did not "pay" for my job. Did you? Did any Southwest pilot? After all, they have to pay for their type before they are hired.

WRONG (AGAIN!) I could apply and be hired tomorrow at SWA (assuming they were hiring and I passed the interview) without spending a nickel. I have a 737 type that was fully paid for by my employer. So, you are completely incorrect that ALL Southwest pilots have to "pay for their type before they are hired". They just have to have one. Where and how they got it is irrelevant.

Unlike you, who did in fact, have to "pay" for your training, which was required by Comair and was aircraft and AIRLINE specific. So, why don't you tell the truth? Or, is it just that you are too stupid to know the difference? Yeah...I think that's it.

As for being evicted, well...do us all a favor. Evict yourself. It would make this board a much better place to hang out.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top