Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CO Pilots Offered Comprehensive Contract Offer  
User currently offlinerobo65 From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 169 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6104 times:

This was actually announced on Wednesday March 17th. Interesting offer, we will see what happens from this. Do you think the CO pilots would be interested in being highest paid or are they really looking for that seat on the board of directors to voice their opinions in any future merger/buyout talks?

CO makes comprehensive
contract offer in pilot talks
CO today made a comprehensive contract
proposal in negotiations with the Air
Line Pilots Association, representing CO
pilots. CO offered to adopt the current collective
bargaining agreement of the world’s
largest airline, Delta Air Lines, plus a dollar
per hour on rates, without a seat on the CO
board of directors for a union representative.
“The innovative proposal is a good-faith
offer to promptly conclude an agreement
that is fair to the company and fair to our
pilots,” said Human Resources and Labor
Relations Sr. VP Mike Bonds.

31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21865 posts, RR: 55
Reply 1, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6069 times:

The DL contract isn't all that great, and matching it would likely come with big scope relaxations. I would hope the CO pilots would be smart enough to hold out for something better.

BTW, what happened to the thread on this topic that was up yesterday?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinerobo65 From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6040 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
The DL contract isn't all that great, and matching it would likely come with big scope relaxations. I would hope the CO pilots would be smart enough to hold out for something better.

I don't know much about DL's contract, but I was under the impression that they had the highest paying contract?

BTW, what happened to the thread on this topic that was up yesterday?

I didn't realize their had been one started already, I couldn't find one which surprised me so that is why I started it.

-Mir


User currently offlinenorcal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5801 times:

This was a terrible contract offer made by CAL management. There is no way that the CAL pilots will just give up their negotiating chip and agree to DL's scope. It'll allow for the replacement of a ton of domestic 737s with 70 and 76 seaters at hight frequency intervals. There is nothing in there that benefits CAL pilots, a $1 raise over DL might seem great until you get furloughed and make $0.

I think a fair compromise would be:

1. Allow 70 -76 seaters on a 1 for 1 swap for 50 seaters. CAL management says that 50 seaters can't make money on some routes fine let them replace them. However do it with no new growth at the regionals.

2. Work out a set number of 100+ seat aircraft for mainline pilots. Both US Airways, B6, and Air Canada have worked this out (Air Canada even has E-170s in their contract) so I don't buy the, "we can't afford it argument." Order E-190s or C-Series and come up with a pay rate equivalent or near B6.


User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4317 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5701 times:

Given the relaxation in scope this provides, there is no way I see CO pilots accepting it, nor should they in my opinion. How many times has scope been relaxed, only for furloughs to happen shortly after flying is outsourced?

I will say though, that management is trying to tempt the pilots with higher pay, and if the pilots don't see this for what it is, it will only hurt them in the long run. If they are serious about scope, what they need is scope language similar to the AA mechanics, which defines a percentage of ASM's that can be outsourced, and not necessarily seat AC. 70 Seat RJ's aren't bad, but they need to replace 50 seat RJ's, not fly in addition to them.

I am not sure how the seat on the board thing plays, but to me I can't see how allowing ALPA to have a seat on the board would be a bad thing for the company as a whole.


User currently offlineUAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5379 times:

CO pilots would be completely stupid to take a Delta type contract. Scope is the only thing that has left CO pilots with a job through all of these hard times and I really hope that they are smart enough to realize this and not let it go now.
From a management standpoint I can see where it is in the overall best interest to get rid of some of the 50 seaters and replace them with larger more economical aircraft but the pilots need to be extremely careful in how they allow this to happen. It is important that they find a way to allow regional routes to grow and use an aircraft that can be profitable while making sure that all of the growth leads to and is handled by pilots flying under the mainline contract.

Now I know this is coming from a management guy so all you pilots my think that I am completely wrong and just another bean counting tool but here is what I would want and think pilots should be going for:
I would work to find a contract that would allow for the airline to get rid of the "Express" operation all together. It is more than clear that airlines will go out and find an express carrier willing to fly cheap so rather than forcing the airline to do that lets come to the reality that it can and will happen and develop a contract that covers this "express" flying at a rate which is competitive and keeps the airline from outsourcing flying to another carrier. Of course to make this happen mainline pilots would have to work hard to understand and admit that express flying is the bottom of the bucket and that it can only be profitable if costs remain at an absolute minimum and flexibility by management at a maximum.
If such a contract could be written it would have its advantages for both sides. The entire group would benefit from substantially lower costs at the airline because "express" and mainline would be the same thing and use the same resources rather than having everything separate from each other. Management would have more flexibility and availability to make necessary changes to the operation as a whole which should allow substantial financial benefits to be realized.
Now I know there are lots of little things keeping this from becoming a reality but the truth is that it could happen if the union would go into it with realistic expectations. Something like this could save an airline millions and millions of dollars a year and could be the difference between profitable and not. The unions really do/should have a great deal of interest in making something like this work, a healthy airline is an airline that will continue to employ people!



/// UNITED AIRLINES
User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4317 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5352 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 5):

Amen to everything you said UAL. Welcome to my RU list.


User currently offlineworldtraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5177 times:

The pressure is on CO mgmt to come up w/ an offer... but from a financial standpoint, it is not likely to get any better than DL. CO pilots might not be interested in the DL scope which doesn't have the need that CO does since DL has no large US partner anymore.... also CO mgmt is removing the seat on the board that DL pilots gained.

User currently offlineStyle From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 267 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5095 times:

Does anyone know if DL pilots are the highest paid in the industry?

There was also another press release on the associated press yesterday that CO and their dispatchers (which are TWU represented) came to an agreement on a 4 year contract.

[Edited 2010-03-19 11:41:53]

User currently offlinedeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9700 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5056 times:

Quoting norcal (Reply 3):
1. Allow 70 -76 seaters on a 1 for 1 swap for 50 seaters. CAL management says that 50 seaters can't make money on some routes fine let them replace them. However do it with no new growth at the regionals.

No, Not an a single seat should be given up. Once they get a foot into the door then that is the end. you end up with the 200+ 70+ seaters at Delta.
Don't give them any extra seats.

Quoting worldtraveler (Reply 7):
The pressure is on CO mgmt to come up w/ an offer... but from a financial standpoint, it is not likely to get any better than DL.

WHAT???? WT your talking about DALPA's BK contract with added room for the NW 76 seaters. That is all it is. It will get better come 2012......and i can't wait to see it.
CO(are they ALPA?) would be STUPID to take this contract and would only set the rest of the pilot world up for a s**ty contract.



yep.
User currently offlineFlyHossD From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 979 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4881 times:

What happened to the thread from yesterday about this same topic?

I believe that the CO pilot group as a whole already sees how poor of an offer this is and
will regard it as unacceptable.

But it is only a first offer from the company, negotiations are just beginning.



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently offlinenorcal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4760 times:

Quoting deltal1011man (Reply 9):
No, Not an a single seat should be given up. Once they get a foot into the door then that is the end. you end up with the 200+ 70+ seaters at Delta.
Don't give them any extra seat

There's approximately 240 50 seat regional jets at CO? I don't see the problem with relaxing scope to say, "Continental can only operate a total of 240 regional jets to be comprised of either 35 to 76 seats and below the MTOW of an E-175," with the stipulation that anything larger i.e. CRJ-1000, E-190, C-Series, etc is operated by mainline. Getting the 90-100+ seat aircraft at mainline would be huge and there is really only so much that they can do if the fleet size stays the same.

Ideally I would love to see anything larger than 50 seats at mainline but management simply wouldn't go for it. CO pilots have the power now but all it takes is one chapter 11 and then you end up with a scope like UA or US. There is no way management will agree to 70 seaters at mainline, it won't happen (unless pilots were to work for regional wages). A compromise needs to be struck and I think giving up some 70 seaters (as long as the regional fleet doesn't grow) would be worth it to get 90-100 seaters at mainline. The 90-100+ seater segment would be where a lot of the growth is anyways.

I might also try and get a little more control over the turbo props as well and limit the size of that fleet, especially the Q-400.


User currently offlineworldtraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 4665 times:

Quoting deltal1011man (Reply 9):
WHAT???? WT your talking about DALPA's BK contract with added room for the NW 76 seaters.

The DL pilots got some very nice bennies for agreeing to the NW merger... that is why the merger went as smoothly as it did... you haven't heard a peep out of the pilots. They apparently are pretty happy w/ what they have and they surely could have asked for more if they thought their concessions in BK still lingered.

I'm waiting to see what CO pilots do but I seriously doubt that CO mgmt is going to go a whole lot sweeter.


User currently offlineUAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 4611 times:

Quoting norcal (Reply 11):
There is no way management will agree to 70 seaters at mainline, it won't happen (unless pilots were to work for regional wages). A compromise needs to be struck and I think giving up some 70 seaters (as long as the regional fleet doesn't grow) would be worth it to get 90-100 seaters at mainline.

This right here is exactly the point! Pilots and management need to think outside of the box a little and make things better for the company as a whole. Management WILL let mainline fly EVERYTHING if the pilots would agree to work at the regional pay rate and why shouldn't they! Regional pay is horrible and its low but its very stable and not going to change anytime soon. Unless you fly a lot in the military you will without a doubt work for a regional airline on your way to the job flying the big jets. So why not work for the large network airline flying the regional jet at regional rates for a few years until you can move up? Allowing the airline to do its own "express" flying would save millions and millions of dollars therefore making the company more healthy overall.
I cannot understand why pilots don't see this and work their asses off on a contract that would include this segment of flying. We always hear about how many seats and aircraft the union is going to give up with scope but we never see these highly paid union leaders actually doing anything to help their membership out and secure this huge segment of flying.

I just don't get it...............



/// UNITED AIRLINES
User currently offlineFlyHossD From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 979 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 4549 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 13):
I cannot understand why pilots don't see this and work their asses off on a contract that would include this segment of flying. We always hear about how many seats and aircraft the union is going to give up with scope but we never see these highly paid union leaders actually doing anything to help their membership out and secure this huge segment of flying.

I just don't get it...............

IIRC, Continental management has never asked the CAL pilot group if they'd be willing to do this.

How can you say that CAL pilots would be too expensive if you've never asked?

Other carriers (jetBlue, Air Canada, COPA) operate 70-90 seat aircraft as mainline aircraft; is CAL management unable to find a way to do this?

CO used to operate aircraft in this size range, the DC-9-10. The "baby nines" were flown by mainline pilots and mainline flight attendants, maintained by mainline mechanics and dispatched by mainline dispatchers. Job protection is a primary function of the unions.

IOW, I believe the union is willing; IMHO, it's management that's unwilling to try.

I do believe that CO would furlough pilots if CO got the Scope "relief" that they've proposed.



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently offlineUAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 4514 times:

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 14):
IIRC, Continental management has never asked the CAL pilot group if they'd be willing to do this.

How can you say that CAL pilots would be too expensive if you've never asked?

Other carriers (jetBlue, Air Canada, COPA) operate 70-90 seat aircraft as mainline aircraft; is CAL management unable to find a way to do this?

CO used to operate aircraft in this size range, the DC-9-10. The "baby nines" were flown by mainline pilots and mainline flight attendants, maintained by mainline mechanics and dispatched by mainline dispatchers. Job protection is a primary function of the unions.

IOW, I believe the union is willing; IMHO, it's management that's unwilling to try.

I do believe that CO would furlough pilots if CO got the Scope "relief" that they've proposed.

You seem to be confused about who does what. Of course management is not beating down the union's door asking them to take back more flying, if management CAN outsource the flying for far less they WILL! Why not! The union is who will have to make the first move on this one and convince management that they will work with them to fly at rates that are competitive and rates that will be a benefit to CO not a liability.

Yes I am with you CO would furlough pilots if they could get scope to allow for it, why not? If management can outsource the flying to a cheaper source than why on earth would they not do it? They would be completely incompetent if they didn't do whatever they could to make the flying as cheap as possible, this is why I say that the union needs to get real about their expectations and go to management with a REAL plan that will allow for both sides to benefit.



/// UNITED AIRLINES
User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2808 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 4462 times:

Quoting norcal (Reply 3):
1. Allow 70 -76 seaters on a 1 for 1 swap for 50 seaters.

It still allows management to add capacity without adding a single job to mainline. Even worse, that increased capacity could allow management to shrink mainline by a few aircraft.

I'd try to tie 70-76 seat aircraft to mainline fleet count, with 350 mainline aircraft being the minimum for management to add a single 70-76 seat aircraft. As aircraft are added to mainline, aircraft are added to the 70-76 seat fleet at a 1:1 ratio. As mainline aircraft are withdrawn, 70 seaters get withdrawn. No regional growth without mainline growth.



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlineworldtraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 4456 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 13):
Quoting norcal (Reply 11):
There is no way management will agree to 70 seaters at mainline, it won't happen (unless pilots were to work for regional wages). A compromise needs to be struck and I think giving up some 70 seaters (as long as the regional fleet doesn't grow) would be worth it to get 90-100 seaters at mainline.

This right here is exactly the point!

the economics of 100 seaters don't work at US network carriers unless they are substanitally lower paid than for other jets... there is not a US network carrier that is adding 100 seat aircraft. Unions at the network carriers are not willing to add a lower paid 100 seat aircraft for fear that it will pull down the rates for other aircraft... and so no 100 seat aircraft are added anywhere and more 70 seat aircraft are added to RJ fleets.


User currently offlineUAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 4357 times:

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 16):
I'd try to tie 70-76 seat aircraft to mainline fleet count, with 350 mainline aircraft being the minimum for management to add a single 70-76 seat aircraft. As aircraft are added to mainline, aircraft are added to the 70-76 seat fleet at a 1:1 ratio. As mainline aircraft are withdrawn, 70 seaters get withdrawn. No regional growth without mainline growth.

I think that we will end up seeing something similar to what you recommend if the pilots are to move at all on scope.
One thing that should be pointed out about minimum fleet numbers is that in hard times unions need to allow for the airline to cut aircraft (and therefore jobs) as needed. Its not fun for either side but when the airline needs to make cuts to stay in business it must be able to do so. We were able to watch this play out at US. They were locked into minimum fleet numbers with everything except for the E190 so when times got hard US could only cut the E190's and did so even though they were not what they wanted to cut and it would have made far better business sense to cut other fleets.
I firmly believe that keeping jobs is important but you MUST look at the big picture, being furloughed sucks but its far better than the company going out of business and everyone losing their jobs for good.

Quoting worldtraveler (Reply 17):
the economics of 100 seaters don't work at US network carriers unless they are substanitally lower paid than for other jets... there is not a US network carrier that is adding 100 seat aircraft. Unions at the network carriers are not willing to add a lower paid 100 seat aircraft for fear that it will pull down the rates for other aircraft... and so no 100 seat aircraft are added anywhere and more 70 seat aircraft are added to RJ fleets.

You are exactly correct and this is what I have a problem with. Unions need to stop worrying so much about pulling everyone else down because the fact is that these jobs already exist and they already pay next to nothing! The union just needs to find a way to add that to their mainline contract and move on, if the crappy pay of regional pilots was going to bring pay down anymore than it already is at mainline it would do it either way!!!!!!



/// UNITED AIRLINES
User currently offlineFlyHossD From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 979 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 3134 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 15):
You seem to be confused about who does what. Of course management is not beating down the union's door asking them to take back more flying, if management CAN outsource the flying for far less they WILL! Why not! The union is who will have to make the first move on this one and convince management that they will work with them to fly at rates that are competitive and rates that will be a benefit to CO not a liability.

CO's pilot contract already requires that CO pilots fly all jets with more than 50 seats (or prohibits flying RJs by an outside vendor with greater than 50 passenger seats), so it seems to me that it's incumbent upon management to
ask for a change.

In other words, the CO pilots don't need the change, CO management does.

 



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently offlineUAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 3103 times:

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 19):
CO's pilot contract already requires that CO pilots fly all jets with more than 50 seats (or prohibits flying RJs by an outside vendor with greater than 50 passenger seats), so it seems to me that it's incumbent upon management to
ask for a change.

In other words, the CO pilots don't need the change, CO management does.

Again management doesn't care if they give the flying out to a different company as long as it is the cheaper way to go. The majority of the benefit would be to the pilots not to management. My statement is for the benefit of the pilots, I think that reworking a contract to include all flying would be of benefit to the pilots and would by default benefit the company. Please read the posts over again I stated that rather than the pilots negotiating scope all the time they should just work out rates that allow them to fly the entire fleet and forget about scope all together.



/// UNITED AIRLINES
User currently offlinedeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9700 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 3004 times:

Quoting norcal (Reply 11):
There's approximately 240 50 seat regional jets at SA)">CO? I don't see the problem with relaxing scope to say, "Continental can only operate a total of 240 regional jets to be comprised of either 35 to 76 seats and below the MTOW of an E-175," with the stipulation that anything larger i.e. CRJ-1000, E-190, C-Series, etc is operated by mainline. Getting the 90-100+ seat aircraft at mainline would be huge and there is really only so much that they can do if the fleet size stays the same.

really? hows that 100 seater working for Delta, oh wait....  
If the SA)">CO pilots alow ANY ground in SCOPE it will cost them jobs. The SA)">CO pilots hold the key to ATI with Star, SA)">CO will give them what ever they want or no ATI. easy as that.

Quoting worldtraveler (Reply 12):
They apparently are pretty happy w/ what they have and they surely could have asked for more if they thought their concessions in BK still lingered.

They didn't get a new contract. The contract doesn't end till 2012.
again i will say, this is the SAME contract that Delta got in BK, minus the fact that Leo Moak signed an LOA to allow the scope limits to let the 76 seaters at NW fly at Delta.

Quoting worldtraveler (Reply 12):
The DL pilots got some very nice bennies for agreeing to the NW merger... that is why the merger went as smoothly as it did... you haven't heard a peep out of the pilots

They got stock and and a voting seat, SA)">CO's pilots would get none of this.....and I have heard peeps out of pilots. You will see, and learn, in 2012.
If you really think the pilots are happy about going from C2K from what they have now then IDK if you can be helped.

Quoting worldtraveler (Reply 12):
I'm waiting to see what SA)">CO pilots do but I seriously doubt that SA)">CO mgmt is going to go a whole lot sweeter.

Then the SA)">CO pilots should walk, this contract sucks and they would be stupid to take it. (plus read above about ATI)



yep.
User currently offlineCO2BGR From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 558 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 2929 times:

There is no reason for the CAL pilots to give up any scope besides the allowance for the UA JV that they so desperately want. I could see a new pay band for "large regional jets" that is a bit less than the current small narrowbody rates. Other that I don't think that there will be any change to the contractual status of the large RJs at CAL.

As for the pay rates, its actually a huge cut for flying the 767-200, and is a pay cut for certain longevity years on the 737.

There are major holes if they were to transfer to the DAL agreement especially in retirement pay outs.

Honestly I would LOVE for the CAL pilots to scope out my job (flying the Q) and would love to reapply for my job with Continental Airlines, not the contract feeder of the week. I'd much rather retire as a Captain flying widebodies internationally then a large RJ bouncing around the northeast for several legs a day.



There are too many self indulgent weiners in this town with too much bloody money" Randal Raines- Gone in 60 Seconds
User currently offlineFlyHossD From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 979 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 2795 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 20):
Again management doesn't care if they give the flying out to a different company as long as it is the cheaper way to go.

Aye, there's the rub! There won't be any "different company" thats "the cheaper way to go" under the current Scope provisions. So the CO pilot group is holding a prize that CO management wants.

I do agree that it would be in the best interests of the CO pilots to fly the large RJs - just as they flew the DC-9-10s.

By the way, I have read the whole thread (and yesterday's thread before it was deleted). Does anyone know why the earlier thread was deleted?



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently offline727forever From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 794 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 2713 times:

Quoting worldtraveler (Reply 12):
The DL pilots got some very nice bennies for agreeing to the NW merger... that is why the merger went as smoothly as it did... you haven't heard a peep out of the pilots. They apparently are pretty happy w/ what they have and they surely could have asked for more if they thought their concessions in BK still lingered.

I'm waiting to see what CO pilots do but I seriously doubt that CO mgmt is going to go a whole lot sweeter.

WT, I normally agree with you, but on this one we do not. DALPA isn't saying anything but the only DL pilot who is happy is Lee Moak and I question whether he truely understands or even cares about Scope. It is the single most important aspect of a pilot contract. Management knows this and is why they are endlessly trying to find ways around it. Most DL pilots know this but DALPA is controlled by the senior most 20% who are concerned only with maximizing their retirement plans since it was stolen from them in bk.

The CO pilots would be foolish to give up their scope. The rest of their contract is extremely weak, but that one section is worth fighting for and for that reason they should kindly tell management not only no, but hell no and we'll see you at the negotiating table.

727forever



727forever
25 UAL747DEN : Why do you only say "large" RJ's though, why not all RJ's? I should point out for those that do not already get it that I think that CO would be craz
26 FlyHossD : "...why not all RJs?" A fair question - the answer is that in a practical sense, the (up to) 50 seat RJ cat is already out of the bag. In (just) my p
27 apodino : I was thinking about scope last night, and the pilot wages are not the only reason that outsourcing is cheaper. I will make my point with USAirways. U
28 nwaesc : Yeah, well, stock worth roughly $50K a piece at the time of issuance tends to do that Several of them already have pay rates established for ~ 100 se
29 worldtraveler : DALPA is the bargaining agent for DL pilots; if DALPA is quite then they either are not doing their jobs or the pilots are happy. CO's pilots might n
30 Bucky707 : With all due respect, I would not take the silence of DALPA as any indication of the feelings of the pilot group as a whole. The interests of DALPA a
31 worldtraveler : good to see you back on here.... I'd be curious how you would realign the DL contract and what the implications are for what CALPA wants.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Suit Against CO Pilots For Sham Divorce Thrown Out posted Mon Oct 19 2009 20:04:01 by Enilria
Pinnacle Pilots Reject New Contract Agreement posted Thu Sep 24 2009 14:17:32 by Apodino
Southwest Pilots Reject New Contract posted Wed Jun 3 2009 13:49:33 by PHLJJS
Do Pilots Usually Know Their Co-pilots? posted Wed Feb 11 2009 18:00:13 by Jawed
UA/CO Pilots Ally On Potential For Merger posted Thu Sep 25 2008 12:28:59 by EWRCabincrew
AZ Unions Decline First Contract Offer posted Mon Sep 8 2008 04:33:36 by Beaucaire
CO Pilots Picketing At Houston HQS posted Mon Jun 9 2008 18:58:16 by CALMSP
Delta Pilots Approve New Contract posted Wed May 14 2008 10:16:03 by Alitalia744
AirTran Pilots Reject Tentative Contract posted Sat Sep 22 2007 20:35:56 by Apodino
Comair Pilots Approve New Contract posted Fri Mar 2 2007 17:53:38 by Dbo861