Alpa Provides Proposal To Management
- Thread starter USA320Pilot
- Start date
Maybe this round of discussions with the company is just a "softening up" process by Lakefield . . . . . to be followed by the "real" ultimatum:
1. HP flat hourly rate for all aircraft regardless of size
2. 75% seniority cut
3. Retirement gone
4. Self-funded 401k
5. No scope
6. No furlough restrictions
7. FAA hours
8. Everyone avail 21 days a month, but un-written promises by Mr. Lakefield not to abuse it.
"Gotta have it, boys, or the companies going under. Let us get back up to speed and we'll be a real powerhouse on the east coast. Once that happens the company will take a look at opening contract talks early. I know it's painful, but if you give it some time we'll fix everything."
1. HP flat hourly rate for all aircraft regardless of size
2. 75% seniority cut
3. Retirement gone
4. Self-funded 401k
5. No scope
6. No furlough restrictions
7. FAA hours
8. Everyone avail 21 days a month, but un-written promises by Mr. Lakefield not to abuse it.
"Gotta have it, boys, or the companies going under. Let us get back up to speed and we'll be a real powerhouse on the east coast. Once that happens the company will take a look at opening contract talks early. I know it's painful, but if you give it some time we'll fix everything."
firstamendment
Veteran
- Apr 1, 2003
- 1,348
- 0
What would that be? Just curious.ktflyhome said:
usairways_vote_NO
Veteran
- Sep 9, 2002
- 1,882
- 57
reason to believe hmm wonder what reason that is?USA320Pilot said:
Ever since my granddaughter was born I never made a promise to her, that I knew full well I couldn't keep. So, when I promise her something, we make a "pinky" promise. We link our pinky fingers together. Hence "pinky promise". This is a set in stone promise and I vow to follow through. It has guaranteed trust, faith, consistancy and integrity and above all Love.firstamendment said:
I thought the minimum number of aircraft in the fleet is 279?USA320Pilot said:
And you are saying it will be 357 (320+37)?
Or are you saying 37 is added to 279 for a total of 316?
Do these numbers include MidAtlantic??
And, I guess, the matter of actually financing new airplanes, is somebody else's job... But indications are that UAIR cannot afford more airplanes.
usairways_vote_NO
Veteran
- Sep 9, 2002
- 1,882
- 57
sounds better then pinky swearktflyhome said:
Interesting. So are you saying the company is not negotiating in good faith? Seems like an about face by you again. When the company arbitrarily sent the Airbus overhaul to AL, then lied about how many aircraft would go, and offered all furloughed workers a job at MDA, your message was "get on board or become collateral damage" to all the other work groups. But now mighty ALPA is negotiating in good faith, but the company isn't? What a load.USA320Pilot said:
usairways_vote_NO
Veteran
- Sep 9, 2002
- 1,882
- 57
Mr USA320PilotUSA320Pilot said:
And what if the company does not step up and bargain in good faith with ALPA? Do you give in or shut em down? huh? Please tell us oh almighty one.
You sure didn't have any problems telling other groups to take what company gives.
What about when company broke IAM's contract you didn't have any problem telling IAM to just give up heavy maintenance. You didn't give a rats that the company wasn't bargaining at all and just taking.
Hypocritical to the max.
Do unto others as long a you don't do unto me.
Dea Certe
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 889
- 0
Phoenix,
I'm not sure, was that a compliment or an insult?
It is such a double-edged sword, the whole "B" scale plan. It can be good in that it may preserve the pay and jobs on the property now.
But then, it sets a lower standard for the future. The quality of employee may be less and you end up with a bunch of chronic mal-contents whose bad attitudes rub off on everyone else. They may not be as movitated to take care of the product.
But then, maybe you end up with a higher turn-over rate that increases training costs.
Or, you end up with a higher cost senior employee. Pension costs, higher medical costs.
I'm not sure what would be best, in our circumstances. I think it's morally wrong to take away pensions of people who have dedicated their lives to a company, only to have rug pulled out from under them at a time they aren't able to make it up.
I also think it's morally wrong to beggar the new-hires. Everyone has to eat. Pilots and AMT's spend small fortunes to get their tickets. FA's and CS people deal with the customer face to face daily under very stressful conditions. They can make all the difference in the world to maintaining the customer base.
Good employees cost money. Good employees also increase revenue.
Tough call.
I'm not sure, was that a compliment or an insult?
It is such a double-edged sword, the whole "B" scale plan. It can be good in that it may preserve the pay and jobs on the property now.
But then, it sets a lower standard for the future. The quality of employee may be less and you end up with a bunch of chronic mal-contents whose bad attitudes rub off on everyone else. They may not be as movitated to take care of the product.
But then, maybe you end up with a higher turn-over rate that increases training costs.
Or, you end up with a higher cost senior employee. Pension costs, higher medical costs.
I'm not sure what would be best, in our circumstances. I think it's morally wrong to take away pensions of people who have dedicated their lives to a company, only to have rug pulled out from under them at a time they aren't able to make it up.
I also think it's morally wrong to beggar the new-hires. Everyone has to eat. Pilots and AMT's spend small fortunes to get their tickets. FA's and CS people deal with the customer face to face daily under very stressful conditions. They can make all the difference in the world to maintaining the customer base.
Good employees cost money. Good employees also increase revenue.
Tough call.
