Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-11-2007, 12:48 AM   #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Albief15's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 2,626
Default Hub Turn Meeting Pirep

Okay...first disclaimer. I rolled in late--with a bucketful of p1ss and vinegar. TonyC, Sleepy, and later BC were up along with Derek and a player I didn't recognize.

Facts first:

Lots of anger about SVT. Lots of concern about pay. Not one ringing endorsement of the LOA except from the dude in the second row who I remember as being a committee member or MEC rep earlier.

BC claims that "scope" and RLA provisions are the big reason to sign. Making flights that start and end overseas under RLA provisions is a huge step. His claim (IMHO a reach..) is that the agreement you sign in the FDA saying you agree to abide by RLA provisions will help solidify future scope battles.

SVT--BC and the crowd say "likely won't happen.." Those were put in to force flex/LCA guys that are 757 initial cadre to go to Paris if required to help spin up operations.

Money--union wanted more but says company will just say no. BC's take is you will eat into some of your budget if you go abroad--it won't be a housing allowance windfall. He claims its still enough to live comfortably...and mentioned a few HK neighborhoods he thought qualified. I'll reserve judgement--haven't been since 1976 so I'll defer to our MD-11 and Subic brethren.

BC says if you don't like it--don't bid it. But don't take $2700 from a guy who wants to go anyway.

Impressions now:

BC needs charm school. (Sometimes I do too...) Granted--he was in from a long international trip. For a guy who says he "doesn't care how we vote" he seems to take any concern on the LOA as a personal scathing attack. My own impression is BC was quite smitten with getting the Hong Kong base instead of the much less desirable mainland base. Rather than complaining about the duty pay for the ground transportation, he was thrilled he "got" the company to agree to not base pilots on the mainland and then pay them for a some of the ground trip. BC has "personalized" this campaign a bit and I think he is shocked by the backlash--and feels insulted. (Again--I'm not commenting except to say this is MY impression based on what I heard tonight). I think he thought he could sell this on the "excitement" of living abroad and the modest allowances. Now that the backlash is exploding in front of him, he's trying to find any reason to say "its still a good deal". RLA and scope are the straws he's grasping.

Some guys are listening to the scope argument. Some aren't. The more junior you are--the more you hate the SVT.

BC kept mentioning his long tenure here. During that time--I'll bet he was never "junior manned" or "inversed" 90 days away from home. I think part of the reason so many guys are stunned by the backlash is they haven't been in a place where you could be junior manned in a long, long time and have forgetten what is feels like to lose that control.

Suggestions and Recommendations:

I suspect the vote might be closer than the 82% no 18 % yes we see here on APC, but that as it is it will fail. If the union wants this to pass, they need to work with the company and tweak the SVT block. If they simply replaced "up to 3 bid periods" with "1 bid period" or "30 days", I think this thing would sail--money shortfalls aside. Draw a line through the coach tickets for families--and use the savings to send me home at the end of 30 days.

Speakers indicated going back to company is "risky". I would argue that if they want this to pass--so is going forward as is.

My take: Find a way to send me abroad for no more than 30 days at a time--and I'll support this effort. For now, my vote is still "NO". The potential improvements in the strength of our scope clause do not warrant me being separated from my family for 90 days...at any price.

Finally--if you are a union leader, and you are finding it harder and harder to deal with those you serve--perhaps its time to go back to the line and do that job you orginally loved so much. Union work is both voluntary and a service job. I grow weary of the "if you guys would do something instead of just throwing spears" whenever someone passes on legitimate complaints. Its hard to step up if those seats and committees are already full, so if the job is stressing you that much--move over. I'm sure there are some talented, service minded folks who will be glad to help as we move forward.

Last edited by Albief15; 07-11-2007 at 12:58 AM.
Albief15 is offline  
Old 07-11-2007, 12:57 AM   #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
PurpleTail's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: HKG
Posts: 515
Default

Thanks Albie for the minutes. Just curious, did anybody ask the question or anybody address the schooling issue abroad? Why there was no allowance included? Thanks again.
PurpleTail is offline  
Old 07-11-2007, 01:02 AM   #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
hamfisted's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 356
Default

Thanks Albie. Appreciate the effort. The SVT is the show stopper for me! The unknowns revolving around the availability of adequate schooling(or lack thereof), the potential for all types of health/medical services issues and resultant financial hits and the realistic availability of affordable/adequate/convenient housing(I don't need something out of "Cribs" but I don't want headless chickens hanging outside my foyer) still leave me with a firm NO vote on this LOA even if they reduce the SVT to 30 days.
Did I win longest sentence of the day?
hamfisted is offline  
Old 07-11-2007, 01:30 AM   #4  
Line Holder
 
ECQLO's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 34
Default

Thanks Albie for the report on the Hub meeting. Last night during the hub turn in SFS. Some of the pilots were talking to Edgar and he will be submitting his Minority Report in the next few hours . It should be out shortly after it has been reviewed by ALPA Legal.

By the way has anyone mentioned the give back in regard to upgrading while being based on a FDA (LOA B.2.g.iii.) " If a pilot changes or attempts to change his crew status within his FDA his original commitment period shall be extended by 12 months + time spent in training". Currently this is not the case . Ask anyone who has upgraded based in SFS.
ECQLO is offline  
Old 07-11-2007, 01:30 AM   #5  
Line Holder
 
sparkmo's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: MD11
Posts: 49
Default

Thanks Albie,

After talking to two LEC chairmen, I get the same impression you described from the meeting.
sparkmo is offline  
Old 07-11-2007, 02:15 AM   #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
BrownGirls YUM's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 478
Default

Albie, thanks for going and thanks for the pirep. A few thoughts quickly come to mind. I really wish I could have been there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Albief15 View Post
BC claims that "scope" and RLA provisions are the big reason to sign. Making flights that start and end overseas under RLA provisions is a huge step. .
Horsehockey. How have we managed to have 12 years of flights starting and ending in an FDA without this up until now? How about all the other (dozens?) of flights daily that have been starting and ending overseas for a LONG time? If that were so important, why didn't we get that language into the last contract? Did we try? BS


Quote:
Originally Posted by Albief15 View Post
His claim (IMHO a reach..) is that the agreement you sign in the FDA saying you agree to abide by RLA provisions will help solidify future scope battles.
Wasn't scope a cornerstone issue in the contract we just signed? Why were they so proud of the scope language written into this last contract if it is so lacking that we need to give away everything else that's been previously negotiated in section 6 to get it? More BS.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Albief15 View Post
SVT--BC and the crowd say "likely won't happen.." Those were put in to force flex/LCA guys that are 757 initial cadre to go to Paris if required to help spin up operations.
FOR TWO YEARS?! Oh, come on. It's there because if passed, nobody will bid the right seat and this will keep them from having to hire off the street. It also allows for them to open and close FDA's at their whim. And why not? They won't have to pay anything for relocation since they would have us sign off on all of that currently pesky section 6 language. Sure the latter is a stretch, but with the current language, it's still available to the company. I'd like to see BC pony up a bet on how many folks actually get bent over by STV if this should pass.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Albief15 View Post
Money--union wanted more but says company will just say no..
And we can do the same. We can say no to the ridiculous compensation at such a vast sacrifice of so many previously negotiated relocation and FDA provisions. We too, can just say NO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Albief15 View Post
BC's take is you will eat into some of your budget if you go abroad--it won't be a housing allowance windfall.
Understatement of the night! I really don't think this guy bothered to do any of the math involved. And when anyone considering bidding the right seat in CDG or HKG does some shopping around and some basic math, They'll realize just how big of a loser this will be financially to them. See comments on STV above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Albief15 View Post
He claims its still enough to live comfortably.
I'd like to see him clearly define "comfortably." I somehow managed to spend a night in a little box in S.E.R.E school sort of comfortably enough to get a few winks, even with the cold rain blowing in and an enormous turd in that little defication can sitting next to me. Somehow I think that will be closer to the comfort one would realize when living in a place in Hong Kong listening to your neighbors fart and smelling their turds!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Albief15 View Post
BC says if you don't like it--don't bid it.
That's precisely what will happen, which pretty much makes his statement about STV pretty silly. How about this option? How about we send his a$$ back in there to actually N-E-G-T-I-A-T-E?????

Quote:
Originally Posted by Albief15 View Post
But don't take $2700 from a guy who wants to go anyway..
What guy? Does anyone actually know of a guy who will bid this right seat?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Albief15 View Post
I think he is shocked by the backlash--and feels insulted...he's trying to find any reason to say "its still a good deal".
As opposed to the man of integrity who would acknowledge his failure and get back on the proverbial horse and do his best to fix said failure. I'm wondering if he now realizes just how bad this thing really is. If he does, trying to sell it like he is doesn't say much for his integrity.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Albief15 View Post
My take: Find a way to send me abroad for no more than 30 days at a time--and I'll support this effort. For now, my vote is still "NO". The potential improvements in the strength of our scope clause do not warrant me being separated from my family for 90 days...at any price.
That's a start Albie, but none of that last paragraph does anything to really improve the lot of the person who would be going over there. The money is silly, especially when viewed in the perspective of how much the company stands to reap from these bases. But giving away SO MANY previously negotiated agreements is unconscionable, never mind the purely exclusionary nature of this agreement to those with families. We gotta do a lot better than just shorten the STV. But it's a start.

Thanks for taking the time to go, and thank you for taking the time to pass on the info to those of us who could not.
BrownGirls YUM is offline  
Old 07-11-2007, 02:35 AM   #7  
Line Holder
 
TonyM's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 26
Default

Albie, Thanks for scribing for the rest of us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Albief15 View Post
SVT--BC and the crowd say "likely won't happen.." Those were put in to force flex/LCA guys that are 757 initial cadre to go to Paris if required to help spin up operations.
Here lies the pitfall that we continually fall into. We, as a pilot group, look at things in the context of their intent and of our current system form. The company looks at things in terms of what they can make of it. We think, 'They won't involuntarily STV many people," while the bean counters are thinking, "look how much money we could save by involuntarily STV'ing the max number of folks."

If this LOA allows them to get away with something, then they will. Really, why wouldn't they?

Also, 30 days against your will is still too long in my book. 15 or 19 days, anything else is voluntary. It wouldn't take too much of a bonus to get people to go...at draft guys would probably be jumping over each other to get there, and I'd say good for them. Heck, good for anyone who wants to go for free, of their own choosing.
TonyM is offline  
Old 07-11-2007, 03:30 AM   #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
av8rmike's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 329
Default

Thanks Albief15 for the post. If this thing were not a turd, why the Company's 'Q&A' post available on VIPS? It's because they care about us, of course... SIBA is hugely expensive, they want to get rid of it and they want us to generate all the cost savings they will realize. Do you think the Woods had $2700/month in Paris, or maybe it was $5400/month? No offense to BC, but the NC sure was waving the Scope clause in our contract as a MAJOR victory and now they're telling us to eat a poop samich so's we can fix it?... My vote is NO and if I get the opportunity like some voters in Lousiana, I'll vote several times NO.
av8rmike is offline  
Old 07-11-2007, 03:36 AM   #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Jaxman187's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: MD11 F/O
Posts: 129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by av8rmike View Post
Thanks Albief15 for the post. If this thing were not a turd, why the Company's 'Q&A' post available on VIPS? It's because they care about us, of course... SIBA is hugely expensive, they want to get rid of it and they want us to generate all the cost savings they will realize. Do you think the Woods had $2700/month in Paris, or maybe it was $5400/month? No offense to BC, but the NC sure was waving the Scope clause in our contract as a MAJOR victory and now they're telling us to eat a poop samich so's we can fix it?... My vote is NO and if I get the opportunity like some voters in Lousiana, I'll vote several times NO.
TWO...........
Jaxman187 is offline  
Old 07-11-2007, 03:46 AM   #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
fedupbusdriver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: A300/310 Capt
Posts: 1,636
Default

Albie, thanks for the report. Hopefully they will hold one of these meetings during the day shift soon.
fedupbusdriver is offline  
 
 
 

 
Post Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
MEM Hub Turn Meeting TONIGHT FedExBusBoy Cargo 17 06-29-2007 12:56 PM
Hub and Spoke ryane946 Major 2 02-02-2006 01:21 PM
UPS Completes Expansion of European Air Hub Freighter Captain Cargo 0 02-01-2006 06:54 AM
FedEx moving Asian hub from Subic to Guangzhou Diesel 10 Cargo 0 07-13-2005 09:27 AM
AA Threatens to Hub at Love Field SWAjet Major 0 02-19-2005 03:14 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:25 AM.