The "Vichy" make a delicious hot soup, but shouldn't be referenced as a battle plan for a national union.
Welcome to the Rest of your Career: Redux
- Thread starter Firebird2XC
- Start date
The "Vichy" make a delicious hot soup, but shouldn't be referenced as a battle plan for a national union.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
The "Vichy" make a delicious hot soup, but shouldn't be referenced as a battle plan for a national union.
You still want your sandwich?
Gonzo
Well-Known Member
@Seggy your idea is just as crazy as @ATN_Pilot 's idea. Flows cost the mainline partner nothing, they have to put skin in the game. The only way I would ever support a flow is if the mainline airline does the interview and gave out a seniority when the person is hired. No mainline pilot group would ever go for something like that.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
YOU DAMNED RIGHT I want my sandwich!
Do you have any pastrami?
Yeah I do! Mustard? Mayo? White or Wheat? Veggies on it?
Happy Birthday as well!
Seggy
Well-Known Member
That is what I had in mind.
There is a backdoor way into this as well. After the Colgan Accident there was a bill being talked about in Congress that would cleared up the law and would make the mainline partner responsible for the liability of their regional affiliates if they had an accident. The victim's families were pushing it. They may push it more after the trials are over in the spring time as well. The A4A killed it, but if that passed, it probably would have lead to more wholly owned regionals for oversight.
As long as you view @ATN_Pilot's idea as crazy I am OK with that
Seggy
Well-Known Member
I am concerned about your BMI.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
This is the real problem with flows: mainline pilots who won't go along with it. Until the mainline MECs get on board with flows, which won't happen until the mainline pilots get on board, then any flows negotiated will be weak-ass pieces of crap like the SSP at Endeavor.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
There's a few problems here.
First, Todd doesn't understand that professionals can have disagreements, and come to two reasonable conclusions, and neither one of them is right or wrong; they're simply different ways of attempting to solve a problem. The impression that I've always gotten is that it's either Todd's (ALPA's) way, or the highway. Unfortunately, if ALPA works like this, they'll go the way of Soviet Russia.
Second, I don't agree with either of you jackasses with regard to how to fix "the regional problem." My view is that there IS no solution besides the liquidation of every regional out there, including my own.
Third, ALPA tends to get fixated on a target, and not realize when they've lost a fight. We're really still working against pre-clearance in Abu Dhabi and worried about orders that Emirates has for American aircraft? Really? The pre-clearance issue is a side show and the aircraft WILL BE delivered.
If ALPA really wanted to get their crap straight, they'd realize that you can't STOP money, but you can help direct what happens with it. Are we worried about cabotage? I sure as hell am, but complaining about aircraft orders to a foreign country is going to do us NOTHING.
Not when Emirates is about to start operating from New York to Milan.
If ALPA wanted to stop this one from hitting the fan, they'd find a way to pass a bill that required all foreign airlines that wanted to operate to and from the United States to points other than where that airline is based, then they're welcome to! But under a few conditions: First, that they open a U.S. base, and hire U.S. pilots to do those operations. Second, that they comply with U.S. law when doing so. And third, that ALPA be the union that represents those pilots. If that carrier doesn't like it, that's fine, they don't have to play ball, and they don't have to operate on those routes.
They WILL play ball because the routes are too lucrative, and U.S. pilots could benefit.
But NNNNOOOOOO, we couldn't do that, because we've never done that, and we wouldn't do that, because that's stupid. Why? Because it's stupid, which is totally an argument on the internet.
First, Todd doesn't understand that professionals can have disagreements, and come to two reasonable conclusions, and neither one of them is right or wrong; they're simply different ways of attempting to solve a problem. The impression that I've always gotten is that it's either Todd's (ALPA's) way, or the highway. Unfortunately, if ALPA works like this, they'll go the way of Soviet Russia.
Second, I don't agree with either of you jackasses with regard to how to fix "the regional problem." My view is that there IS no solution besides the liquidation of every regional out there, including my own.
Third, ALPA tends to get fixated on a target, and not realize when they've lost a fight. We're really still working against pre-clearance in Abu Dhabi and worried about orders that Emirates has for American aircraft? Really? The pre-clearance issue is a side show and the aircraft WILL BE delivered.
If ALPA really wanted to get their crap straight, they'd realize that you can't STOP money, but you can help direct what happens with it. Are we worried about cabotage? I sure as hell am, but complaining about aircraft orders to a foreign country is going to do us NOTHING.
Not when Emirates is about to start operating from New York to Milan.
If ALPA wanted to stop this one from hitting the fan, they'd find a way to pass a bill that required all foreign airlines that wanted to operate to and from the United States to points other than where that airline is based, then they're welcome to! But under a few conditions: First, that they open a U.S. base, and hire U.S. pilots to do those operations. Second, that they comply with U.S. law when doing so. And third, that ALPA be the union that represents those pilots. If that carrier doesn't like it, that's fine, they don't have to play ball, and they don't have to operate on those routes.
They WILL play ball because the routes are too lucrative, and U.S. pilots could benefit.
But NNNNOOOOOO, we couldn't do that, because we've never done that, and we wouldn't do that, because that's stupid. Why? Because it's stupid, which is totally an argument on the internet.
Screaming_Emu
Well-Known Member
Agreed.
Earlier Seggy said that there is no trophy for participation in this industry, but that's exactly what a flow through is.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Complete BS. Seggy and I have been disagreeing on things for years without getting into a real scuffle. The problem here is that he's basically trashing the character of someone, claiming that he was soaking up FPL for nothing. That crap does piss me off, especially when you know some things about the financial condition and the FPL draw of a certain MEC around the same timeframe. Rock throwing in glass houses comes to mind.
Firebird2XC
Well-Known Member
That's exactly what happened at Eagle. AA came to Eagle and said, "we want to put jets here!" Then they went to the APA and said they wanted little jets at Eagle. The APA said, "sure, as long as if we furlough we flow back into them. Super seniority, Captain seats all the way, bitches!"
So then Eagle ALPA countered with, "if they can flow back, we want a flow through."
AA /APA agreed, and after a decade or so of flowbacks corking up the top of the list, they got recalled, and after about five years or so, they actually called up some flow-throughs. Granted, AA recalled out of seniority order when some of the numbered Eagle pilots should have been called up. That litigation drug on for quite a while. The litigation stemming from this 'Letter 3' disaster is ongoing and seemingly endless.
Flow-throughs are worthless, kids. They're empty promises that amount to 'someday, maybe!'. Get your money/compensation up front and in hard language.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Flow throughs have their place. But you need to have buy-in from everyone. It needs to be a four-party agreement with iron-clad language. Without that, it's basically useless. Hell, the current ALPA president basically oversaw the dismantling of the Compass flow-through. If you don't have buy-in from everyone, it doesn't work.
But even though I'm a supporter of flows (when they're done right), I don't view them as a solution to the very real problems at the regionals.
But even though I'm a supporter of flows (when they're done right), I don't view them as a solution to the very real problems at the regionals.
Firebird2XC
Well-Known Member
A solid flow through should then, in my opinion, include issuance of seniority numbers. First guy to get 'flow rights' gets the next number after the last active pilot on the list, then so on. Anything else is just an empty promise.
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
To put it delicately, there is no way in hell that the mainline pilots (never mind what the MECs think) will get on board with flows (as you describe them).
Nor should they.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I would probably agree with that.
Firebird2XC
Well-Known Member
Why not? A 121 operation is a 121 operation, is it not? The primary reason mainline pilots are against regional flow-through is because they view themselves to be of a higher pedigree. Former military, Ivy League, what have you. But the real truth is that you don't really need that stuff to be a highly competent, professional airline pilot. The real reason they don't want flow-throughs is because they perceive themselves to be superior people, when in fact, they may have just possessed a few additional resume bullets at the time of hiring. Or just been lucky enough to have good timing.
A 121 pilot in an Embraer 145 is doing the same work as a Boeing 737 pilot. The only things that change are the how big the numbers get.
If the hiring practices of a regional airline are really so questionable, maybe they should re-examine them for the industry. As it stands, the only reason mainline pilots have to not want a flow-through is to hold their door open for crony-ism.