Originally Posted by
gatorbird
The clues we've been handed from reps is that transition language as it stands is a non-starter, which is why I brought up some alternatives a few pages back. If that's the way it's gonna be- fine. It'll be up to us (NC via I assume polling) to come up with a solution. I heard it best from LEC 18 CA Rep P.D.: regardless of how much money or credit a guy makes from transition, the MEC/NC view it as a QOL provision. I agree with that viewpoint, so with that in mind, it should only be modified/replaced by other QOL items (not sold for a rate/PS/etc).
So what solutions are out there? Not PBS in my opinion, for the reasons I stated in my last post along with many others. That's why I'm a fan of a solid min calendar day, elimination of trip averaging, and higher min days off than currently agreed to. If anyone else has other possible solutions let's hear them.
This info, that the MEC/NC considers transition a QOL issue and should only be modified/replaced with another QOL issue, needs to be the#1 bullet point in the P2P briefs. Instead, the MEC chooses to lecture any pilot who discusses transition about undermining the negotiations.
I'm with you Gator, I support the "it's a QOL issue". I just don't understand why the union is trying to spin us with Bovine Scat. It seems to me, that they don't see us as team members, but as people that they have to fool into agreement. Note to MEC, stop telling me to get in line, just lead the fornicating line.
As to improvements, you know me: dump the average and you'll immediately gain 18% at the end of the month. My mantra since 2003.