Alpa Fdx
05-11-2007, 04:57 PM
#362
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,238
I think the company's negotiators are guffawing through clouds of cigar smoke right now.
It'll be many a moon before they see a pilot group as united as last year. Not after this. As Albie says, this transaction is "zero sum." A transfer of wealth from one group to another. No way will we trust each other after this.
It'll be many a moon before they see a pilot group as united as last year. Not after this. As Albie says, this transaction is "zero sum." A transfer of wealth from one group to another. No way will we trust each other after this.
05-11-2007, 05:02 PM
#363
...Whatever It Is!
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,680
While not claiming to be a "smarter guy" on the board, I will, as always, offer my opinion.
When you want to know what the company will do the old rule of "follow the money" almost always works. I am sure they will both mitigate and exploit this issue for their profit. As training is a pretty big expense, it is unlikely they will want to train anyone who can not give them at least 5 years or more of productivity. Considering those older among us have the most vacation and highest usage of sick time I am sure they will not want to retrain anyone over 60. Having said that, if they can find a way to get something else that is of more value to them to facilitate the MEC policy of retroactivity (say PBS as an example) they may agree to an LOA regarding displacements to allow just that. Unlikely, but after what we have witnessed with the MEC ignoring the membership wishes to help out a small minority, not as unlikely as I once believed. As usual, the company has taken the wiser road here of remaining quiet until they see how everything turns out. When it comes to retroactivity I think the MEC should have done the same instead of causing such needless discord amongst their membership, especially since they now say it probably won't happen anyway.
When you want to know what the company will do the old rule of "follow the money" almost always works. I am sure they will both mitigate and exploit this issue for their profit. As training is a pretty big expense, it is unlikely they will want to train anyone who can not give them at least 5 years or more of productivity. Considering those older among us have the most vacation and highest usage of sick time I am sure they will not want to retrain anyone over 60. Having said that, if they can find a way to get something else that is of more value to them to facilitate the MEC policy of retroactivity (say PBS as an example) they may agree to an LOA regarding displacements to allow just that. Unlikely, but after what we have witnessed with the MEC ignoring the membership wishes to help out a small minority, not as unlikely as I once believed. As usual, the company has taken the wiser road here of remaining quiet until they see how everything turns out. When it comes to retroactivity I think the MEC should have done the same instead of causing such needless discord amongst their membership, especially since they now say it probably won't happen anyway.
Because then we'll have guys that won't want passover and will b!tch about not getting to actually sit in the CAP seat. Don't think it'll happen? Had a guy in my upgrade class that had less than year before turning 60. Company offered him passover, he whined and cried to JL and went to upgrade (He was also one of usual DP takers as well! But that's a different thread!
)
05-11-2007, 05:06 PM
#364
...Whatever It Is!
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,680
User CP>Edit Options>scroll down to Thread Display Options:Number of Posts to Show Per Page
Makes following threads easier than having to scroll through numerous pages. I may have to reset to 50 per page after this thread!
05-11-2007, 05:14 PM
#365
Trust but Verify!!
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: MD11 CRA
Posts: 684
"If the company doesn't want to pay to train someone, they will have to pay them passover, IF there is retroactivity for the ropes, and IF these guys bid to upgrade. Kind of a win win for all of those on the seniority list, rope and non-rope alike. Otherwise, they train the guys and we get what we are b!tching about. Are you saying they will come to us and say, "we won't train these guys if you guys swallow PBS"?"
Sorry for the confusion MD. See, I told you I wasn't one of the smarter guys on this board.
What I was trying to say is if there is no bid for those covered by Age 60 retroactivity to get a front seat on, the company may agree to an MEC request for a displacement bid via an LOA in exchange for something like PBS so they can, as the MEC keeps saying, hold what their seniority allows. As I said, unlikely but I don't know what the MEC will do without our input next. If there is a normal bid out for them than what you said is correct.
Sorry for the confusion MD. See, I told you I wasn't one of the smarter guys on this board.
What I was trying to say is if there is no bid for those covered by Age 60 retroactivity to get a front seat on, the company may agree to an MEC request for a displacement bid via an LOA in exchange for something like PBS so they can, as the MEC keeps saying, hold what their seniority allows. As I said, unlikely but I don't know what the MEC will do without our input next. If there is a normal bid out for them than what you said is correct.
05-11-2007, 05:16 PM
#366
...Whatever It Is!
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,680
Sorry for the confusion MD. See, I told you I wasn't one of the smarter guys on this board.
What I was trying to say is if there is no bid for those covered by Age 60 retroactivity to get a front seat on, the company may agree to an MEC request for a displacement bid via an LOA in exchange for something like PBS so they can, as the MEC keeps saying, hold what their seniority allows. As I said, unlikely but I don't know what the MEC will do without our input next. If there is a normal bid out for them than what you said is correct.
What I was trying to say is if there is no bid for those covered by Age 60 retroactivity to get a front seat on, the company may agree to an MEC request for a displacement bid via an LOA in exchange for something like PBS so they can, as the MEC keeps saying, hold what their seniority allows. As I said, unlikely but I don't know what the MEC will do without our input next. If there is a normal bid out for them than what you said is correct.
Gotcha! Hope we never see something like that! But then again....
05-11-2007, 06:15 PM
#367
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 478
You call that unity??? Were we at the same company last year? The company's negotiators have been guffawing through clouds of cigar smoke since October. They have now added champagne and dancing girls (brown ones at that).
05-11-2007, 06:33 PM
#368
Slainge Var'
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Zeppelin Tail Gunner
Posts: 1,530
Some observations:
1) Obergrupenfurher Webb doesn't care about what the membership thinks, about anything, on any issue, period! (unless we agree with him)
2) The MEC is happy to have their trips bought for attending a union meeting and have never opposed DW on any issue.
3) "Was passed by the MEC unanimously" means, we always do what DW wants because we are happy to have our trips bought by those dues paying dopes.
4) I'm nostalgic for Frank Fato and Mike Weiland! (how sad is that?)
5) Benedict Arnold was not an MEC chairman, rumors to the contrary not withstanding.
1) Obergrupenfurher Webb doesn't care about what the membership thinks, about anything, on any issue, period! (unless we agree with him)
2) The MEC is happy to have their trips bought for attending a union meeting and have never opposed DW on any issue.
3) "Was passed by the MEC unanimously" means, we always do what DW wants because we are happy to have our trips bought by those dues paying dopes.
4) I'm nostalgic for Frank Fato and Mike Weiland! (how sad is that?)
5) Benedict Arnold was not an MEC chairman, rumors to the contrary not withstanding.
05-11-2007, 06:39 PM
#369
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 202
In reference to the "message from the mec" email tonight, I find it appalling that they are trying to spin this by using the "Overwhelming majority of fdx pilots do not favor a change to age 60", but then go on to say, "66% of pilots alpa wide want our union to influence the change if change is imminent."
OK, FDX pilots don't want it by an overwhelming majority, and 66% of ALPA-wide pilots (non-fdx) want the union involved if it's going to change. Excuse me, but if FDX pilots don't want it why is our MEC pushing forward with other ALPA-wide statistics?
As for retroactivity, "but we also know that protecting seniority is the right thing to do for the right reasons", screw you Dave. Did you not shutdown and settle (for nothing I might add) our recent grievances about training and transferring pilots out of seniority? Let me guess, if seniority is so sacred, why did a bunch of us junior guys get screwed? That one cost me 30 grand, I'm not going to let you stiff me again.
Listen to your people Dave, they're trying to tell you something.
OK, FDX pilots don't want it by an overwhelming majority, and 66% of ALPA-wide pilots (non-fdx) want the union involved if it's going to change. Excuse me, but if FDX pilots don't want it why is our MEC pushing forward with other ALPA-wide statistics?
As for retroactivity, "but we also know that protecting seniority is the right thing to do for the right reasons", screw you Dave. Did you not shutdown and settle (for nothing I might add) our recent grievances about training and transferring pilots out of seniority? Let me guess, if seniority is so sacred, why did a bunch of us junior guys get screwed? That one cost me 30 grand, I'm not going to let you stiff me again.
Listen to your people Dave, they're trying to tell you something.
05-11-2007, 06:51 PM
#370
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
zman,
I agree with you 100%. Lets recall these SOB's.....
I agree with you 100%. Lets recall these SOB's.....
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
