Atlas Air Hiring
06-27-2014, 10:13 AM
#8841
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: On My A$$
Posts: 241
Originally Posted by White Cap
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.
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.
Cargowannabe
06-27-2014, 11:26 AM
#8842
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 117
Originally Posted by Whalefr8
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.
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.
...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....
06-27-2014, 12:09 PM
#8843
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: What day is it?
Posts: 963
Originally Posted by cargowannabe
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
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
It could have been a "what if" to see what the response would be. It could have been something said designed to leak back to the company and start a brush fire. It COULD have been something to find out who the rumor mongers are.
It COULD have been a LOT of things. And all you intend to do, by your own words...it to perpetuate and spread it. Without really knowing anything but what you heard from someone who claimed they heard it.
Unity? Getting facts before you spread what you heard? Not a chance from you. Your promised actions are the very reason committees keep close counsel. 800 pilots with 1600 different opinions on how to do something as simple as tying their shoes. And if the rumor begins that the committee is discussing shoes, 800 guys will DEMAND that their idea alone should be implicated because everyone else ideas are full of buffalo pucks...and if the committee doesn't; they are traitors, and should be shot.
And after all that...with the leadership having to deal with the bs and stomping out brush fires and rumors...it turns out they weren't talking about it anyway. But there's no Roseanna Roseannadana here saying..."sorry."
And no one here with the guts to stand up and admit being a rumor monger.
There is an upside. For the company. They LOVE rumor mongers. They split the group, cause dissension and make it easier for them to look at the leadership with a stack of emails, blog posts and the like and say, "see...we know what your pilots will do and we know how to divide your group."
Ask the previous (ALPA era) negotiators or MEC how many times the company dropped a stack on the table that way.
Confused? Go back and look at WWII era posters about loose lips...about what you see here...what you say...what you hear.
NO difference between then and now. Except who the real fight is with.
06-27-2014, 12:21 PM
#8844
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: What day is it?
Posts: 963
Originally Posted by C5nwhaleguy
I'm guessing the 777MOU/LOA wouldn't be significant ...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....
...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....
You should do your homework before posting these things Mike. Not just listen to the spew of a few who were not here.
06-27-2014, 12:57 PM
#8845
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: On My A$$
Posts: 241
ATCsaidwhat wrote: And no one here with the guts to stand up and admit being a rumor monger.
Heck sign me up I know I am a rumor monger. Who on here isn't? Is everything on here truth?
Cargowannabe
Heck sign me up I know I am a rumor monger. Who on here isn't? Is everything on here truth?
Cargowannabe
06-27-2014, 01:58 PM
#8846
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Position: Left Seat
Posts: 466
To be clear, there are no talks to trade gateway for retirement! There is some talks to adjust the gateway, in terms of the backup flight requirements.
If anything is negotiated by the ExCo, that changes pay or QOL for the majority of the crewmembers, it will be voted on, plain and simple. Now, lets say the company comes to the union and offers something for nothing, then there is no need for a vote.
This rumor was started by a guy that was unhappy with some things that went on two weeks ago. He is putting a slate together to run against the current group. As I said earlier, campaigning BS! Nuff said, back to the hiring thread!
If anything is negotiated by the ExCo, that changes pay or QOL for the majority of the crewmembers, it will be voted on, plain and simple. Now, lets say the company comes to the union and offers something for nothing, then there is no need for a vote.
This rumor was started by a guy that was unhappy with some things that went on two weeks ago. He is putting a slate together to run against the current group. As I said earlier, campaigning BS! Nuff said, back to the hiring thread!
06-27-2014, 02:18 PM
#8847
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2014
Position: B-767
Posts: 158
The EXCO discussed the issue on the last P2P call, which I believe is posted. I am frustrated by company maneuverings in relation to the CBA, but we cannot, as a pilot group, assign winners/losers on every single issue that we fight. Our EXCO was elected by a majority, everyone needs to back them. After their term is up, we evaluate and decide which way to go forward. Fighting and name calling on every issue is a waste of energy. Back to hiring talk.
06-27-2014, 02:21 PM
#8848
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Position: Gear Jerker
Posts: 29
Originally Posted by Whaledriver
To be clear, there are no talks to trade gateway for retirement! There is some talks to adjust the gateway, in terms of the backup flight requirements.
If anything is negotiated by the ExCo, that changes pay or QOL for the majority of the crewmembers, it will be voted on, plain and simple. Now, lets say the company comes to the union and offers something for nothing, then there is no need for a vote.
This rumor was started by a guy that was unhappy with some things that went on two weeks ago. He is putting a slate together to run against the current group. As I said earlier, campaigning BS! Nuff said, back to the hiring thread!
If anything is negotiated by the ExCo, that changes pay or QOL for the majority of the crewmembers, it will be voted on, plain and simple. Now, lets say the company comes to the union and offers something for nothing, then there is no need for a vote.
This rumor was started by a guy that was unhappy with some things that went on two weeks ago. He is putting a slate together to run against the current group. As I said earlier, campaigning BS! Nuff said, back to the hiring thread!
06-27-2014, 02:54 PM
#8850
Tuk er jerbs!
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: B747 Left
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by CandlerKid
How is changing gateway not a QOL issue for the majority of the group? If you are confirming that this talk is going on, will we get to vote on it?
The union's position is that there are no contractual backup flight requirements. For them to fight the company's use of backups does not require an LOA/membership vote.
Disclaimer: I am not an official union spokesperson.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
