Originally Posted by C5nwhaleguy (Post 1672722)

BTW, Surverys are great but individual voting is better. Surveys aren't worth the keyboard strokes until they are put to an Entire membership vote! thats what the guys who've had contracts for 50 years wanted and have. Power in the hands of the few is a scary concept and the elder atlas guys should have learned that by now.

Originally Posted by ATCsaidDoWhat (Post 1672692)

You should be upset at your own inability to research facts before you make posts with half baked information. There are several plans, NONE of which are controlled by the Teamsters that are in excellent shape and extremely well funded.

Because the company does not control them as with older, traditional airline plans, they don't "go away" in bankruptcy like traditional plans controlled by companies.

If the ExCo is looking, they are likely looking at Western Conference and or the Defined Benefits Plans. Both are very secure and have guaranteed payouts because they cannot be used by an airline or group as collateral for anything.

The "corruption" talk is cute and may make someone out to be the BMOC at the bar, but to people who understand, it just makes you out as someone who likes to hear themselves talk.

For all the expertise being floated about lately and referencing other carriers CBA's, it is interesting to note that the experts have missed the fact that those carriers have had contracts in place for as many as 50 years in some cases and the place they are now is nowhere near where they were in their second contract; let alone a first combined contract. The experts see current day and assume it's always been that way.

Before anyone goes shooting down a pension plan, they should first look at the plan being considered, time to vesting and payout at regular or early retirement.

And for someone...anyone...who claims to be connected or doing union work to go out and leak half baked and inaccurate information about what may be in process...that's pathetic. Anyone who has ever done serious union work knows full well that discussions on issues are never linear; they take many twists and turns before an outcome is reached.

Want to disagree with the leadership? Fine. Do it with facts, not rumors you can't back up. And have the backbone to stand up, put your name and face with the charges and defend them in public instead of behind a keyboard and avatar.

This place has seen enough of that over the years and doesn't need any more. If you don't like the place, leave. Plenty of folks said more than once that it's a different type of flying. It's clear that a lot of folks have come here for a paycheck and a rating, waiting for a legacy job to open up so they can go fly a 3/4 schedule.

Go. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Go smile and do the shuck and jive for managements that roll up and down with the economy, chasing the bubble. What they have now, they will give back in ten years or less when the economy cycles as it always does.

Meanwhile back at Atlas they'll still have a management team that figured out how to run an airline without putting all their financial eggs in one basket. And a stronger, mature third or fourth contract and stable growth that is not tied to the traveling public and their disposable income...or lack thereof.

Originally Posted by White Cap (Post 1672930)

Amen to that.

I asked the EXCO directly. The answer to alleged secret negotiations was NO. The company won't even offer a settlement to our breakfast grievance, to think that they would arbitrarily sweeten a compensation package is just ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Whalefr8 (Post 1672915)

It would be good for you to find out the history of the SCBA and why it was not voted on. From your posts you really have no idea what you are talking about.

You could google:

ALPA Merger Policy
Allegheny/Mohawk
Railway Labor Act

You should do your homework before posting these things Mike. Not just listen to the spew of a few who were not here.

Surveys are how the leadership finds out what the membership wants. We had many surveys prior to the last negotiations. But you were not here - so you would not know that.

Any change to the CBA will be voted on by the membership. Nothing that significantly affects the career or pay of the membership gets implemented without a vote.

Originally Posted by cargowannabe (Post 1672826)

Someone here mentioned the harsh word, in union speak, leak.

I have been pondering the definition and I need help with the please.

Would a leak be considered:

A) A committee chair sitting in a cockpit running issues by the pilot he/she is flying with and then that person spouting off in public that they know XYZ.....
B) An elected Union official bouncing an idea off of a friend, then that friend speaking it as gospel, then it goes public that they know XYZ....
C) A low level union worker, lets say not in the room during any discussions, that happens to fly with the elected union officials good friend that he bounced the idea off of and within a week or so had a committee chair ask him questions on the same subject, then made it public while all the while not being in any trusted position........
D) The pilot group as a whole for spouting off information that the they here from.......that knows somebody......... that......

I hope that you all get my point. I am not sure if the retirement and gateway things are true, I certainly hope they are not, but if they are and I found out through any of the above situations then I would go public and probably be MORE vocal than the individual that alerted the pilot group to the potential of NEGOTIATIONS without pilot group input or any type of communication.

Cargowannabe

Originally Posted by C5nwhaleguy (Post 1673074)

I'm guessing the 777MOU/LOA wouldn't be significant :eek:...only to a few on the top as was described in the forum. That doesn't affect the whole pilot group...new training, pay differential, upgrades/transitions, bases who knows as we sure wouldn't. NO announcement yet but As the previous poster asked define significant....