Exactly. They are in section 6, so you don't include them in industry standard talks with management.
Delta is a little bit different. Yes, they just started Section 6, but Delta isn't on a normal bargaining cycle. Because of the merger with NWA, Delta got a "second bite at the apple" after bankruptcy, which means that their rates aren't still on the old bankruptcy era bargaining cycle like the others. Their rates are relatively new, unlike United, USAirways, etc.
Just so you know, the NMB included the Delta rates when telling us what they considered to be part of the industry standard while in negotiations, but they never mentioned United or USAirways. They also included Alaska and Hawaiian, which had recently achieved new contracts. That was
their view of the industry standard, not ours. Their view just happened to agree with ours, because it is the reasonable view. Yours is not.
Which brings up my point, for the listed A320 carriers, who do you use for comparison with management if you can't use the guys negotiating off rates that are 10 years old? That was my point.
Again, your point makes no sense, because we don't bargain "A320" rates. We bargain small narrowbody rates. That includes other airframes of similar size. Some carriers (such as Delta) choose to break up almost every single airframe into a separate rate in the agreement, but that's based on minor modifications to an overall SNB standard. Nobody goes into negotiations and focuses on one airframe at a time trying to negotiate rate tables. That would take an eternity, for one thing, but it would also not make any sense. When it comes to mainline equipment, there are essentially three categories of aircraft: SNB, LNB, and WB. The A320 fits into the SNB category, along with lots of other airplanes like the 737 and MD-90. You have to include those rates when trying to determine an industry standard rate. An A320 rate is not going to be wildly different than a 737 rate. There could be minor adjustments based on seating capacity differences with a specific model or configuration, but that's about it.
Exactly. Which is why I think the Railway Labor Act is criminal when applied to airlines. The original intent of the law was never meant to applied to us in this case. It's not like Pinnacle shutting down would bring the country to a stand-still in transportation.
Sure it was. The purpose of the Railway Labor Act was to set up a framework for resolving disputes (both major and minor) without disrupting air commerce. Of course, the intent was also for there to be some point when an impasse would be declared, and the parties would be free to exercise self help. That's the part that has largely been ignored over the past 10 years, mostly because of a very pro-management NMB being in place for most of that time. With the new NMB, we've seen a change in attitude for the better. The RLA isn't the problem, it's the people who compose the NMB that have been the problem.
You aren't supposed to. She works behind the scenes, along with the rest of the staff. You also have a communications specialist that works for your MEC. Do you know her name? Of course not. There are dozens upon dozens of staffer who help your union function on a daily basis. You don't see them because they aren't the face of your MEC, but they're doing the work. Her name being in the public isn't important. Her being at the bargaining table is, and that's exactly where she was.
I agere with the first part, until "717?" , but then after that, your comment of higher SWA pay justifying the cost of type rating...... that applies today. SWA has historically required a 737 type, even in the pre-9/11 days when their wages were industry bottom for the 737. So your argument doesn't hold much water
That's because it's not my argument, it's theirs. I disagree with it. Like I said, I'm opposed to the policy. I think it's unnecessary and demeaning to require people to pay for their own type rating. But I don't think SWAPA cares too much about it, so I doubt the requirement is going anywhere anytime soon.
Chautaqua, Trans States, and Mesa all come to mind right away. I think ExpressJet's rates were lower at the time, as well. That changed later with Contract 2004. ASA, Comair, and ACA all had good rates. PSA and Air Whiskey were about the same as ours, I believe. So, like I said, we were about in the middle of the pack. Nothing to brag about, but nothing to be ashamed of, either.
Turned down ALPA once, I stand corrected. But turned down another unionization attempt before, which as you said was JBPA. The point still being they turned down representation twice now.
Expect them to be unionized within 24 months. Probably as ALPA.
How do you define "a lot"? And what document do you have that tells you which pilots at JetBlue were TWA guys and which ones voted yes? Maybe they voted yes because they finally won a DFR lawsuit against ALPA and now stand to gain lots of $$$$. I won't buy the argument that a "lot" voted yes. There will always be a few in every bunch, but the bottom line is 58% (or more) of the group said no, and that's more than half the group not wanting ALPA or JPBA.
I helped work the organizing campaign, so I met a lot of these guys face to face. I know they were TWA pilots, because they said so. Pretty simple.
Well, much. Crap, nevermind, I guess I just lied.