Originally Posted by
Jett i son
Thanks to all who are combating corruption.
Our corrupt congress, sold out to "special interest groups", does not work for us, and cannot get anything done!
No argument here. Both Dems and Repubs are guilty as sin.
Originally Posted by
Jett i son
takes action to enjoy the fruits of a great, smiley
work environment.
Our work rules are the result of sacrifice and a strike.
In my seemingly continued efforts to keep our MEC power structure unhappy with me…………WRONG. The assertion that our work rules are the result of a strike is just plain WRONG!
"5 days off in a row to the max extent possible, no less than 4" was an existing work rule
before we had a CBA.
Transition conflict existed from the first CBA, negotiated in 1998 and ratified early in 1999. (BTW, we had pure conflict bidding in C1999, which was given up in C2003) The "max six days" conflict we have now is better than the C2003 version but still not the original pure conflict.
"No JA" was in the original, C1999, CBA.
The "no jeopardy" commute clause was gained in 2007, outside of contract negotiations, as part of the base closure mitigation negotiations when Spirit announced that they were closing DTW.
Red/Green is a part of the automation section of the scheduling section. As such, it isn't a work rule. The current ability to drop a trip isn't the result of a red/green work rule, it is the result of an overstaffed airline. The actual language regarding "required daily minimum reserve coverage" is found only in the Float Vacation section. And, Section 25.R.4.a.1, allows the company to establish said min coverage based on the companies "experience". This is still a work in progress *
In general, the vast majority of our work rules, QOL, etc were either part of the existing work rules from pre 1999, or were implemented in C1999, or were the result of LOA's made outside of Section 6.
For a bit of trivia, how many of you know why the Spirit pilot group organized in the first place?
*The last I saw from the union, and I may have missed something, …..the arbitrator sent both parties back to the table to decide on some agreeable language that would reflect both parties understanding of this section. This was published in the arbitors opinion of the latest red/green ruling.
Answer to trivia: According one of the guys who was here when I was a new hire, and retired soon after, they organized for merger protection - not because they desired to fight with Ned. This explains why so much of C1999 was simply a formalization of the then existing work rules package.