Avg Calendar Day, LOS approved
12-27-2017, 07:22 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,094
Originally Posted by Laker24
Apparently from the rumor mill. 1 MIA rep against. 1 LAX rep against. 1 phx rep against. Both DFW against. Both CLT against. The other east bases sound like they might be against the deal. Doesn't look good for furloughees or junior line holders. 20 days on per month indefinitely ...
There must be more to the story if they are voting this down.
12-27-2017, 09:39 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Posts: 321
Originally Posted by Name User
There must be more to the story if they are voting this down.
12-28-2017, 05:05 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 404
Originally Posted by Laker24
Yes. Politics. They don't like the fact that Carey went out on his own to make the deal without any BOD input. The positives far outweigh any negatives.
12-28-2017, 10:11 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2011
Posts: 224
I don't get the push by the BOD to turn down things like profit sharing and this.
What's the point?
Profit sharing was fine, even if the union BOD couldn't negotiate in whatever bennies they wanted for themselves at the top.
LOS - This is great for those folks off property! I'd have thought it'd end up compromise (% equiv time when off property).
Avg day. Much fairer, some of those trips were BOGUS.
Folks demanding min day outside of contract ... uh? Even if available this BOD would never be able to negotiate for it - they were looking at turning down profit sharing...
The approach here at BOD level is too weird, what's in it for them?
What's the point?
Profit sharing was fine, even if the union BOD couldn't negotiate in whatever bennies they wanted for themselves at the top.
LOS - This is great for those folks off property! I'd have thought it'd end up compromise (% equiv time when off property).
Avg day. Much fairer, some of those trips were BOGUS.
Folks demanding min day outside of contract ... uh? Even if available this BOD would never be able to negotiate for it - they were looking at turning down profit sharing...
The approach here at BOD level is too weird, what's in it for them?
12-29-2017, 03:18 AM
#46
You scratched my anchor
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,876
The big problem is allowing current scheduling practices to remain. They really dont operate by any rules. This would allow them to basically have no rules going forward. I can’t imagine not having ANY language on scheduling practices.
12-29-2017, 03:34 AM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Position: 6th place
Posts: 1,826
Originally Posted by Al Czervik
The big problem is allowing current scheduling practices to remain. They really dont operate by any rules. This would allow them to basically have no rules going forward. I can’t imagine not having ANY language on scheduling practices.
I keep hearing that but what exactly aren’t they following?
12-29-2017, 03:42 AM
#48
You scratched my anchor
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,876
Originally Posted by mainlineAF
I keep hearing that but what exactly aren’t they following?
I think LOS is a big deal to us.
12-29-2017, 03:47 AM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Position: 6th place
Posts: 1,826
Originally Posted by Al Czervik
I know that the handling of open time seems to change on what scheduling needs. I’ve spoken to scheduling 2-3 times this year. I don’t know what the issues entail. I’d hate to see this turned down unless it’s way out of hand. I would think the company has language on specifics rather than just “we’re going to do whatever we want.”
I think LOS is a big deal to us.
I think LOS is a big deal to us.
Yea i don’t deal with scheduling much either. These scheduling issues just don’t seem like that big of a deal when compared to us gaining ACD and LOS.
If this gets voted down I’m going to be extremely disappointed.
12-29-2017, 04:52 AM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: MD-11 FO
Posts: 2,180
Originally Posted by dynap09
I don't get the push by the BOD to turn down things like profit sharing and this.
What's the point?
Profit sharing was fine, even if the union BOD couldn't negotiate in whatever bennies they wanted for themselves at the top.
LOS - This is great for those folks off property! I'd have thought it'd end up compromise (% equiv time when off property).
Avg day. Much fairer, some of those trips were BOGUS.
Folks demanding min day outside of contract ... uh? Even if available this BOD would never be able to negotiate for it - they were looking at turning down profit sharing...
The approach here at BOD level is too weird, what's in it for them?
What's the point?
Profit sharing was fine, even if the union BOD couldn't negotiate in whatever bennies they wanted for themselves at the top.
LOS - This is great for those folks off property! I'd have thought it'd end up compromise (% equiv time when off property).
Avg day. Much fairer, some of those trips were BOGUS.
Folks demanding min day outside of contract ... uh? Even if available this BOD would never be able to negotiate for it - they were looking at turning down profit sharing...
The approach here at BOD level is too weird, what's in it for them?
The answer to everyone one of your questions is ego.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
