View Single Post
Old 03-22-2013 | 06:45 PM
  #12  
Mwindaji
I'd rather be hunting
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
From: B737 Captain
Default

Originally Posted by HSLD
Have you read the contract? If so did you notice that there are implementation dates that are up to a year after the date of signing?

If the "UPA ALPA contract reps" that you're referring to are the members of the Joint Implementation Task Team (JIT) which comprises of Negotiating Committee Members from both CAL and UAL along with SME's, then yes, they are absolutely essential and should be in place until the job is done. Until the contract is fully implemented and there is agreement as to how the CBA is administered by UAL, the JITs full engagement and over site is crucial. In my opinion they don't get paid enough, nor will they ever get the 4 years of fulltime/overtime work on your behalf back.

FPL for handfull of pilots is a drop in the bucket when you consider what's at stake. Out of curiosity, what does your tie tac look like?
Yes I did read the contract. Maybe you can explain why it takes a year to implement it and why these folks need to be unqualified working out of their homes and making more than other hard working union members and line pilots? Is the contract done? Is not the implementation dates already set by the LOA? Please enlighten me?
IMO we have people that just want to get paid as a pilot without being one. Anyone have an idea what is longest a committee member has gone without being qualified in their equipment, getting that extra pay, working out of their home and not missing special days with their families? One year, Two years, Three? Now I know why it will take a year to implement the CBA. What is the incentive for folks in these positions to do this quicker? It certainly doesn’t benefit them or the company.
My tie tac - ALPA. My bags ALPA. My lanyard -ALPA. If you think this is an attack against our union, you’re wrong. If you think this is an attack against the fraud waste and abuse by a few within our union you are correct.
Reply