Search
Notices

Assessment

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 10-29-2018, 10:11 AM
  #11  
Kabuki Kool
 
FreshWater's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Position: fu3king.airline@Furlough. DNA
Posts: 447
Default

Originally Posted by akulahunter View Post
First, this should be on the official FB page, not here...

Second, although I voted yes, the actual wording of what the assessment dues can be used for is extremely open-ended. I can see why some people have an issue.

Third, again I voted for it, but we will never, as a pilot group, be able to raise enough money to battle the company if they want to keep fighting this and up the ante. (G4 writes our checks and has MUCH bigger pockets...) This money is to help negotiate and help pay the lawyers that are fighting our grievances... (I'll leave my opinion on that out of this)

If you are against it, vote no. If you are for it, vote yes. If you want to have a constructive conversation, do it on the FB page not here...
G4 sure does have deep pockets, they just wrote a check to the Kinzer legal team (my guess) for over 10 million dollars. A midnight hour last minute out of court settlement, because G4 was going to lose big time and they knew it. G4 management is machine gunning contract violations faster than the pilot group can write them up. We ultimately win well over 50 percent of our disputes. All in an effort to frustrate and break/bankrupt the pilot union.

Are they winning?
FreshWater is offline  
Old 10-29-2018, 01:40 PM
  #12  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Desert Sky's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 264
Default

Originally Posted by tom11011 View Post
Not everyone has a facebook account.
That's not a reason to post internal info on a public forum. People can always open a FB account and solely use it for internal union issues or email the exco asking for another forum option.
Desert Sky is offline  
Old 10-29-2018, 02:14 PM
  #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,940
Default

Originally Posted by Desert Sky View Post
That's not a reason to post internal info on a public forum. People can always open a FB account and solely use it for internal union issues or email the exco asking for another forum option.

Obviously people don't agree with you
tom11011 is offline  
Old 10-30-2018, 08:54 AM
  #14  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2016
Posts: 120
Default

I hear negative sentiments regarding the company’s treatment of the contract, especially here. I hear things like “company completely disregards the contract,” and “company constantly battles pilots, they hate us.”

I am going to propose something controversial. Put your pitchfork down and hear me out. Ok, here goes… what if we brought this on ourselves? What if it’s our fault there are so many grievances? Yes, even the PBS situation. After all, we voted yes on this contract. Should we be as angry knowing the decision came from us? There, I said it.

Perhaps the company is only doing what our contract allows them to do. Maybe they are just interpreting it differently because the contract allows interpretation… we all know this is true. What if nothing malicious is taking place and they’re simply doing what we voted to let them do? I know there are exceptions.

This should be our motivation going into the next round of negotiations. Let’s not forget.
dutch rudder is offline  
Old 10-30-2018, 10:56 AM
  #15  
Kabuki Kool
 
FreshWater's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Position: fu3king.airline@Furlough. DNA
Posts: 447
Default

Originally Posted by dutch rudder View Post
I hear negative sentiments regarding the company’s treatment of the contract, especially here. I hear things like “company completely disregards the contract,” and “company constantly battles pilots, they hate us.”

I am going to propose something controversial. Put your pitchfork down and hear me out. Ok, here goes… what if we brought this on ourselves? What if it’s our fault there are so many grievances? Yes, even the PBS situation. After all, we voted yes on this contract. Should we be as angry knowing the decision came from us? There, I said it.

Perhaps the company is only doing what our contract allows them to do. Maybe they are just interpreting it differently because the contract allows interpretation… we all know this is true. What if nothing malicious is taking place and they’re simply doing what we voted to let them do? I know there are exceptions.

This should be our motivation going into the next round of negotiations. Let’s not forget.
I do hope we can continue to discuss all these matters in a civil tone during our eventual status quo strike. Should be quite the show, all those pretty airbus’s parked for just a few days. This will be a fantastic opportunity for maintenance to get all caught up.
FreshWater is offline  
Old 10-30-2018, 11:03 AM
  #16  
Gets Weekends Off
 
labbats's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A320
Posts: 1,347
Default

Selection of a PBS vendor will be mutually agreed to by the parties. Such agreement will not be unreasonably withheld
I suggest you call your union rep and get the full story. You will be surprised at why we are where we are now. It is unreasonable and thus goes against our contract quoted above.
labbats is offline  
Old 10-30-2018, 12:48 PM
  #17  
Gets Weekends Off
 
CAirBear's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,181
Default

Originally Posted by FreshWater View Post
I do hope we can continue to discuss all these matters in a civil tone during our eventual status quo strike. Should be quite the show, all those pretty airbus’s parked for just a few days. This will be a fantastic opportunity for maintenance to get all caught up.
I swear to god it better happen! ENOUGH is ENOUGH.

The notion we have put ourselves in this position is asinine. The PBS LOA was 95% agreed upon, by BOTH parties before the company walked away and said F you. Now they are trying to implement this without any LOA. What are you smoking?
CAirBear is offline  
Old 10-30-2018, 06:06 PM
  #18  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2016
Posts: 120
Default

Originally Posted by labbats View Post
I suggest you call your union rep and get the full story. You will be surprised at why we are where we are now. It is unreasonable and thus goes against our contract quoted above.
If the LOA contained only the sentence you posted, perhaps we would be better off. Why didn’t you post the paragraph directly above it? You know, the paragraph that states that the company and PBS committee will select a PBS vendor, “including the consideration of the current in-house solution.” No consideration should be given to the in-house solution, so why is that sentence even there?
dutch rudder is offline  
Old 10-30-2018, 06:29 PM
  #19  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2016
Posts: 120
Default

Originally Posted by CAirBear View Post
I swear to god it better happen! ENOUGH is ENOUGH.

The notion we have put ourselves in this position is asinine. The PBS LOA was 95% agreed upon, by BOTH parties before the company walked away and said F you. Now they are trying to implement this without any LOA. What are you smoking?
I think you're taking my words further than I intended. Of course we aren’t responsible for the company reneging on the 95%. However, we did put ourselves in the situation of being 2 years in without any consequences for the company.

For example, what if our LOA contained a clause like “both parties shall mutually agree to a PBS vendor within one year. NO consideration will be given to in-house solution. After one year has elapsed without agreement, the PBS committee shall make the selection.” Hypothetical? Yes, but with language like that, you'd bet your ass we’d have new software.
dutch rudder is offline  
Old 10-31-2018, 10:15 AM
  #20  
Gets Weekends Off
 
CAirBear's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,181
Default

Originally Posted by dutch rudder View Post
I think you're taking my words further than I intended. Of course we aren’t responsible for the company reneging on the 95%. However, we did put ourselves in the situation of being 2 years in without any consequences for the company.

For example, what if our LOA contained a clause like “both parties shall mutually agree to a PBS vendor within one year. NO consideration will be given to in-house solution. After one year has elapsed without agreement, the PBS committee shall make the selection.” Hypothetical? Yes, but with language like that, you'd bet your ass we’d have new software.
They have not once (management) ever talked about using CBI. Maybe in the very beginning, and I missed it, but they seem to want SmartPref and both the Union and Company agreed on it. Obviously they feel they are going to implement it without an LOA (Good luck this isn’t pre-CBA). I will ask you this, even if we had hard time lines in place why would you think they would still care or honor them?

I know everyone says it was unrealistic, but we did in fact have a deadline. This was supposed to be done Jan 1, 2016.
CAirBear is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Want2BAtlasAv8r
Hiring News
121
06-15-2018 07:26 PM
LasseNedergaard
Career Questions
4
03-29-2017 06:09 AM
apflyer1
Cargo
16
01-17-2015 06:57 AM
LinkedPilot
Flight Schools and Training
0
02-21-2012 02:32 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices