US Pilots Labor Discussion 2/17- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[nycbusdriver]

USA Today Article: Senators Look to FAA to Change Commuting Policy

Can't see any movement ever happening here unless crewmember bears the brunt. Company will never spring for rooms, and domiciles will always open and close. BOS LGA LAS PIT BWI CMH .......

Dear Senator Blowhard:

Thank you for your concern. I suggest that the senate, which has had over the decades a large hand in letting the entire airline industry go to sh**, put their money where there ample mouths are and pass legislation giving all airline crew members a tax CREDIT for commuting expenses.

You want we should get a hotel room, then let Uncle Sam foot the bill.

With all DUE respect,
Airline Crew Members Everywhere

 

[usabusdriver]

Simpler solution - require crew members live in their domicile.

Sure, that will work nicely, if the company will by my house for what I think it is worth, like they did with Isom.

 

[Glucose Intolerant]

Simpler solution - require crew members live in their domicile.

Never going to happen..........never.

 

[HPearlyretiree]

Sure, that will work nicely, if the company will by my house for what I think it is worth, like they did with Isom.

In the real world, employees have to relocate all the time, and are expected to live where they work, for executives, companies often pay moving expenses, as a way to attract the best.

Being jealous of Isom will not help you. If you want some company to buy you a house, then become an in demand executive and negotiate your terms.

Till then, it ain't happening for you. Enjoy the perk you have of being able to commute.

 

[luvn737s]

I don't think I have ever seen a west pilot call out any other west pilot for their childish, or worse, actions. "It doesn't matter what we do, look what was done to us! Wah!"

You should have been at some AWA MEC Meetings in the past. But the AWA pilots wouldn't suffer those who failed to serve and recalls were a regular occurance.

 

[malikie]

Sure, that will work nicely, if the company will by my house for what I think it is worth, like they did with Isom.

Then step out of the pilot ranks and into the executive ranks.

If push comes to shove do you really think the company or any company will spend any money to help employees commute to work? You will see companies require their employees to live in their respective domiciles. At which time the employees will have to think deeply and ask themselves if moving their families is worth sticking around or start looking for other employment.

 

[Piedmont1984]

Most companies in the real world don't close where employees work at the rate they do here. When I was based - and lived - in ROA, the CEO told me it was the last move I would have to make.

Then came the other bases I worked out of - BWI, SYR, GSO, PIT and LGA. And I wasn't even based in ORF, ATL, LAX, MIA, SFO and now BOS.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Most companies in the real world don't close where employees work at the rate they do here. When I was based - and lived - in ROA, the CEO told me it was the last move I would have to make.

Then came the other bases I worked out of - BWI, SYR, GSO, PIT and LGA. And I wasn't even based in ORF, ATL, LAX, MIA, SFO and now BOS.

Don't forget ILM and SAN. There may be a few F/As here that were based in TYS...but that's really going far back.

And I think the west contingent had a base in CMH, and now LAS is on the chopping block.

 

[malikie]

And I think the west contingent had a base in CMH, and now LAS is on the chopping block.


CMH closed after 9/11. LAS is already closed for both pilots and flight attendants. Everyone is out of PHX.

As for the base closures that is part of our industry. The airlines allow employees to commute so you do not have to uproot your families. But if the government steps in and makes changes you can be sure the perk of commuting will cease and companies will require their employees to live in domiciles.

 

[Pacemaker]

If anyone's been looking for the straw that'll break the camel's back and result in a unified SOS to shut down the industry, here it is.

Requiring flight crew members to live in domicile would represent a huge departure from long-standing practice and would face insurmountable hurdles, not the least of which would be re-negotiated labor contracts that wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting off the ground.

You're not gonna force someone to move to PHL.

End of story.

 

[malikie]

If anyone's been looking for the straw that'll break the camel's back and result in a unified SOS to shut down the industry, here it is.

Requiring flight crew members to live in domicile would represent a huge departure from long-standing practice and would face insurmountable hurdles, not the least of which would be re-negotiated labor contracts that wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting off the ground.

You're not gonna force someone to move to PHL.

End of story.

In good economic times you would be correct. But as it is now with the unemployment rate at or above 10% and numerous pilots unemployed those who would not move to a domicile would find out that there is someone waiting in the wings who would move to PHL for a chance to have a job. And this is not just for the pilot and flight attendant groups. this applies to all groups within any company.

 

[nycbusdriver]

If anyone's been looking for the straw that'll break the camel's back and result in a unified SOS to shut down the industry, here it is.

Requiring flight crew members to live in domicile would represent a huge departure from long-standing practice and would face insurmountable hurdles, not the least of which would be re-negotiated labor contracts that wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting off the ground.

You're not gonna force someone to move to PHL.

End of story.

It would be great to see airline crewmembers across the industry be unified enough to pull off an SOS over this.....or anything.

It should have been done 20 years ago over screening requirements, but promises for programs like CASS kept us all in line while the promises turned out to be empty.

How many non-commuters can we realistically expect to participate in a SOS? Without near 100% participation from every airline, it will appear to be an illegal job action and participants will be sanctioned. Face it. We (industry wide) are divided enough on nearly every issue that an SOS is unachievable no matter what happens.

 

[veritasaequitas]

veritasaequitas,

QUOTE (BoeingBoy @ Feb 23 2010, 04:42 AM) *
So you tell me - which contract allows "almost unlimited" RJ's? The one with a limit of 163 or the one with a limit of 465? The one that allows a 3:2 increase in large RJ's or the one that allows a 1:1 increase in large RJ's if the mainline fleet grows above a given level? The one that allows up to 86 seats or the one that allows up to E190's?

You never answered my questions...an oversight I'm sure...
Jim

First of all, are we just supposed to take your word for it. You have no quotes or links to provide, to base your findings on.

Your figures are inaccurate, the ones I provided you in a previous quote are. There is a motive to your infatuation with this pilot labor discussion subject and in my opinion it is not for the betterment of society in general. You were an ALPA rep and flight pay loss recipient most of your career, were you not?

As far as your E190 quote, it is irresponsible for you to make a comment on this when such is only not true but violates the East contract. They can sell these aircraft to operate on another airline, but not USAirways



The following is a quote from a USAPA update;

"In our last update we discussed Section 1 of our contract. The following scope provisions protect our pilots in the event of asset sales (read sale of E-190’s) as well as the corresponding route transfers of E-190 flying that are now currently flown by Republic Airlines. Section 1(B) 4a, b, and c read as follows:

4. In addition to all other rights under the Agreement, if any pilot whose name appears on the then current System Seniority List would be furloughed in anticipation of or as a result of such action, the Company shall not:

a. Transfer any route segments currently flown by US Airways, Inc. to any Part 121 airline which is owned, controlled or operated by the Company, whether directly or indirectly through an affiliate or subsidiary wholly owned or controlled by the Company, or by a holding company of which the Company is a wholly owned subsidiary, or to another Part 121 airline using the US Airways designator code, name, logo or marketing identity; or

b. Sell, lease or otherwise transfer any aircraft currently owned, leased or operated by US Airways, Inc. or any new or used aircraft currently on firm order from the manufacturer or owner thereof, to any Part 121 airline which is owned, controlled or operated by the Company, whether directly or indirectly through an affiliate or subsidiary wholly owned or controlled by the Company, or by a holding company of which the Company is a wholly owned subsidiary, or to another Part 121 airline using the US Airways designator code, name, logo or marketing identity; or

c. Acquire any Part 121 airline which would be owned, controlled or operated by the Company, whether directly or indirectly through an affiliate or subsidiary wholly owned or controlled by the Company, or by a holding company of which the Company is a wholly owned subsidiary

Believe it or not (again) we received a response from Al Hemenway who disagrees with our take on the above language. The section above is part of our current agreement signed in contract 1998, to which the underlying document LOA 93 is attached. It appears that Mr. Hemenway is preparing to argue over the word “currentlyâ€￾ that is in our contract as the E-190’s were not on the property in 1998. Since the aircraft were not delivered until 2008, “Big Alâ€￾ thinks that our contract does not apply to the E-190. Nice try Al, but the contract is inclusive of all aircraft flown by US Airways; route and aircraft transfers are clearly in violation of our agreement if furloughs ensue. Once again it appears that we may be headed down the grievance trail with our management as they nitpick and find ways not to honor our contract.

 

[Phoenix]

It would be great to see airline crewmembers across the industry be unified enough to pull off an SOS over this.....or anything.

It should have been done 20 years ago over screening requirements, but promises for programs like CASS kept us all in line while the promises turned out to be empty.

How many non-commuters can we realistically expect to participate in a SOS? Without near 100% participation from every airline, it will appear to be an illegal job action and participants will be sanctioned. Face it. We (industry wide) are divided enough on nearly every issue that an SOS is unachievable no matter what happens.

Yeah... it would be hard but there is one thing I would hands down, no questions asked participate in a SOS for. Put ALPA back on the property and I WILL SOS, even if it is all by myself.

 

[BoeingBoy]

First of all, are we just supposed to take your word for it. You have no quotes or links to provide, to base your findings on.

No need - just read LOA 91, LOA 93, and the TA...

Your figures are inaccurate, the ones I provided you in a previous quote are.

Wrong.

You were an ALPA rep and flight pay loss recipient most of your career, were you not?

Once again - wrong.

As far as your E190 quote, it is irresponsible for you to make a comment on this when such is only not true but violates the East contract.

Read LOA 93 - it will illuminate the darkness you're engulfed in.

The following is a quote from a USAPA update;

I don't see any quotes or links in that update. What was it you said about that...something about "no quotes or links to provide, to base your findings on" making it not to be believed...

Everything I said came straight from the LOA's mentioned above and the TA. Perhaps you should really know what you're talking about before saying others are wrong - it just makes you look foolish.

Jim