Originally Posted by
ancman
If you need a refresher on the specifics of the settlement, then I recommend reading the multitude of previous threads in which myself and others debated it in detail. In addition, you’ll find what you’re looking for in CA bulletin 23-03.
I have spoken with more than one rep regarding the settlement. Not all were in favor. I am also familiar with Kellett’s position. I found it disappointing that a committee chair with an otherwise great track record chose to support contract concessions as a solution to the backlog of violations that his committee was tasked with enforcing.
The bottom line is that we significantly reduced the company’s trip coverage costs, all while receiving nothing of value in return. At the very least, the concessions should have been valued appropriately and traded for a quid of equal value.
While I agree with you that management has a long track record of anti-pilot arrogance, this is the worst that I’ve personally witnessed during a contract implementation period. I don’t ever recall a blatant refusal to implement certain items that management doesn’t care for, nor any memos with the tone of BP’s, in any of our previous contract cycles.
I'm not defending the decision for sure, it was a terrible deal. We codified some assignment language that was vague and loose but it was NOT adequate for the financial weight given up. As for SK, my understanding is that the commitee is and has been overwhelmed by ACE and the commitee has little ability to function out side of auditing and that needed to change for the long term health of the commitee, which he is tasked with managing. That said, I think managements refusal to pay and schedule appropriately was intentional to force a settlement by making the situation unsustainable. These deliberate actions were entirely the company's doing.
The ALPA response was slow and effort consuming but gaining a robust response tool with the app system and the eventual direct data analysis so the company would eventually have to change or pay much more and timelier. 23.W.1.d. was going to speed up the response and the company knew they would be on the hook for a lot more pay. They drove the task saturation to force a capitulation and mitigate the financial liability. The company (our current VP RG) made a concious decision to weaponize 23.M.7. and the overwhelming response letter by current and past ALPA MEC members was effectively written on rice paper and disolved when recieved. If fact I think it emboldened RG and was the catalyst to his promotion.