Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Cargo
Support your NC - Vote "NO" - give them the leverage they need. >

Support your NC - Vote "NO" - give them the leverage they need.

Notices
Cargo Part 121 cargo airlines

Support your NC - Vote "NO" - give them the leverage they need.

Old 07-20-2007, 06:24 AM
  #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
DLax85's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,189
Thumbs up Support your NC - Vote "NO" - give them the leverage they need.

Gents -

Please show support for your MEC Negogiating Committee --- now, and in the future.

Vote "NO" on this particular LOA and give them the leverage (via unity!) they need to get back to the table and fix a few issues --- in writing.

After reading the LOA itself, all the perspectives on the message boards, the MEC e-mails, and the company FCIFs and web-based information, it's very clear to all of us that...

...the LOA is substandard, loosely written in many areas, and sets a bar that will only need to be raised in future negogiations.

(The folks who "support" this LOA will even tell you that)

...BOTH the company and the our Union want our pilots to fly in these FDAs (...go back and read the company e-mails, that's what they are BOTH saying).

Agreeing to this substandard LOA now, with the idea that will fix it in 2010 is a big mistake and will eventually cost all 4,800 pilots (...yep even them 727 guys)

In 2010, when we are looking for cost-of-livinig raises of 3-5% across the crew force, trying to defend the "A fund" (..can you say "cash balance"), trying to keep 60 as the "full retirement" age, etc, etc, the bean counters will calculate the "total cost" of such raises/benefits.

Similarly, when we start asking for improvements to the FDA packages to rectify the acceptance of this weak LOA, a "total cost" will be calculated. Mgmts next move will be to ask us which we prefer --- can't have both now, remember the mantra "...it must be cost nuetral."

Additionally, each aircraft at each location is a seperate FDA --- meaning the STV clocks don't start ticking for the future MD-11 FDA in HKG and the future A300 FDA in CDG until the open in...??? ...2009? ...2010?

I wonder how benevolent mgmt is going to be in "seeking volunteers for STVs" or "limiting STVs to only 30 days" during contract negogiations...??

Anyone venture to guess?

It's true, we have no leverage now IF we pass this particular substandard LOA...and we reduce our leverage and starting position in the future.

We ABSOLUTELY have leverage right NOW (...and can show support for our NC right NOW) if we vote "NO" on this particular LOA.

We can send our NC back to the table with a mandate they can show the company -- "Sorry guys, they weren't willing to do it on the cheap -- let's sit down and look to fix the problems (..in writing) we've now identified and come up with a more equitable package, we believe they will approve"

Once again, we shouldn't expect the platinum or gold version of the LOA, but need not accept a lead version either.

In Unity,

DLax85
DLax85 is offline  
Old 07-20-2007, 07:13 AM
  #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
MaydayMark's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 4,304
Default

DLax85,

Although I generally agree with your confrontational approach with the company, I'm pretty good at reading between the lines when it comes to the NC saying one thing (because they are legally required to) but really wanting us to do another thing ...

The NC and the MEC have said that they believe that if this LOA is voted down, that the company will:

a. Open the FDA in accordance with section 6 of the CBA

b. Put out a bid and include with it the terms of the LOA. in fact, BC said he wished the company had done that because he thinks we have bigger fish to fry (i.e. the condition of the latest bid pack lines) and are wasting major resources dealing with the LOA.

c. It is obvious that BC is taking criticism about the LOA VERY PERSONALLY. IF he really wanted it to be voted down, I don't believe he would be as invested in this thing as he is.

My experience with this company is that they make a weak offer to the union in hopes that we'll bite (read: Postal Contract LOA). If we don't, they've already planned a way to accomplish what they need in accordance with the CBA. Even if it costs them significanly more that the LOA would have!

I believe that is the case here ... don't get me wrong, I believe that this LOA is hugely inadequate. I'm just not so sure that the company will come crawling back with a better offer? I hope I'm wrong. I'm still voting NO!


Regards,


Mark

Last edited by MaydayMark; 07-20-2007 at 07:15 AM. Reason: spelling police
MaydayMark is offline  
Old 07-20-2007, 08:28 AM
  #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Haywood JB's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: Who knows...waiting for a bid
Posts: 379
Default

I think the "rub" is going to be, if we pass this LOA, they fill the vacancies via STV and new hires(for the FO side), and the captain slots will go by those who feel the terms are acceptable. If the LOA fails, the company opens the FDA, but now, all vacancies in the right seat will go to new hires. Yeah, there may be a few folks who bid the right seat, but I think the majority of folks won't. I think this puts a huge slow down on the actual opening, and also the fact they wanted experienced purple guys over there. No LOA=no STV.

I think the union also needs a message that the crew force isn't going to sit back and let them send junk our way and we are going to blindly pass them because "my union speaks for me." I think this may open their eyes a little to actually ask the crew force what is important to us and negotiate for it.

Still voting no, and still arguing on the crew bus with those who think they won't be affected by this to also vote no.

HJ
Haywood JB is offline  
Old 07-20-2007, 08:40 AM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
DLax85's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,189
Default

Originally Posted by Haywood JB View Post
I think the "rub" is going to be, if we pass this LOA, they fill the vacancies via STV and new hires(for the FO side), and the captain slots will go by those who feel the terms are acceptable. If the LOA fails, the company opens the FDA, but now, all vacancies in the right seat will go to new hires. Yeah, there may be a few folks who bid the right seat, but I think the majority of folks won't. I think this puts a huge slow down on the actual opening, and also the fact they wanted experienced purple guys over there. No LOA=no STV.

I think the union also needs a message that the crew force isn't going to sit back and let them send junk our way and we are going to blindly pass them because "my union speaks for me." I think this may open their eyes a little to actually ask the crew force what is important to us and negotiate for it.

Still voting no, and still arguing on the crew bus with those who think they won't be affected by this to also vote no.

HJ
...agree, and that "slow down" is NOT in the company's best interest and a better "middle ground" LOA can be negogiated....win-win for all.

...for those on the crew bus, ask them how much "negogiating capital" are we going to spend in 2010 to "fix" this LOA then ---- it is going to "cost" them as I pointed out in the original post below.

In Unity,

DLax85
DLax85 is offline  
Old 07-20-2007, 08:54 AM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
DLax85's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,189
Default

Originally Posted by MaydayMark View Post
DLax85,

Although I generally agree with your confrontational approach with the company, I'm pretty good at reading between the lines when it comes to the NC saying one thing (because they are legally required to) but really wanting us to do another thing ...

The NC and the MEC have said that they believe that if this LOA is voted down, that the company will:

a. Open the FDA in accordance with section 6 of the CBA

b. Put out a bid and include with it the terms of the LOA. in fact, BC said he wished the company had done that because he thinks we have bigger fish to fry (i.e. the condition of the latest bid pack lines) and are wasting major resources dealing with the LOA.

c. It is obvious that BC is taking criticism about the LOA VERY PERSONALLY. IF he really wanted it to be voted down, I don't believe he would be as invested in this thing as he is.

My experience with this company is that they make a weak offer to the union in hopes that we'll bite (read: Postal Contract LOA). If we don't, they've already planned a way to accomplish what they need in accordance with the CBA. Even if it costs them significanly more that the LOA would have!

I believe that is the case here ... don't get me wrong, I believe that this LOA is hugely inadequate. I'm just not so sure that the company will come crawling back with a better offer? I hope I'm wrong. I'm still voting NO!


Regards,


Mark

I hope would hope my approach is not considered "confrontational" --- rather part of the accepted process by which we come to agreement on work rules/compensation etc.

I also hope BC doesn't take things personally --- need alot thicker skin when you are in such a difficult leadership role.

I am also a bit dismayed with all the talk of "last offer'..."no more money"...."no bid until LOA"....this is all "brinksmanship" --- not negogiations.

We can wait a few weeks/months to sit back down an negogiate a "silver" or "bronze" LOA --- in fact, the timeline is actually in our favor --- not the companies, who are retrofitting 757s with cargo doors as we speak.

Also, please educate me on the ramifications of the Union saying "NO" to the Postal LOA.

It's my understanding that LOA was "concessionary" (i.e. FEDEX wanted 2-3 less "min days off" per month), and when the union said "No" they were forced to ask for "volunteers" and "draft" to cover the manning shortfall (...and of course, eventually hire more pilots).

Yes, in the end the some pilots got more $$ by flying extra hours of volunteer and draft, while others didn't --- but all had an equal chance and no-one was non-vol'd to fly.

The company can certainly continue SIBA in CDG and open SIBA in HKG, but that is exactly what they are already trying to avoid.

The bean counters know they can afford to sweeten this deal a bit and we need to politely ask them to come back to the table to address some of the inadequacies of this particular LOA.
DLax85 is offline  
Old 07-20-2007, 09:45 AM
  #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
PurpleTail's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 519
Default

Originally Posted by MaydayMark View Post
DLax85,

c. It is obvious that BC is taking criticism about the LOA VERY PERSONALLY. IF he really wanted it to be voted down, I don't believe he would be as invested in this thing as he is.

I believe that is the case here ... don't get me wrong, I believe that this LOA is hugely inadequate. I'm just not so sure that the company will come crawling back with a better offer? I hope I'm wrong. I'm still voting NO!

Just spit balling here but I got a feeling there is a pretty hefty BONUS for BC if he can sell and get this LOA passed and that is why he is taking this a little too personal. Wouldn't be the first time!

Still a "NO" vote for me!
PurpleTail is offline  
Old 07-20-2007, 10:29 AM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
angry tanker's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: MD-11 F/O
Posts: 390
Default

Conspiracy Theory - Company wants the LOA, The MEC wants over 60 back in the Left Seat...Discuss...
angry tanker is offline  
Old 07-20-2007, 02:03 PM
  #8  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 63
Default

Originally Posted by PurpleTail View Post
....I got a feeling there is a pretty hefty BONUS for BC if he can sell and get this LOA passed and that is why he is taking this a little too personal.
hey pt, since i didn't see any sarcasm symbols, i have to ask do you have any facts to back up your "feeling," or are you just a complete idiot? would you address your "feeling" directly to bc in a hub meeting? didn't think so...
Carlos Abundis is offline  
Old 07-20-2007, 04:46 PM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
JethroFDX's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B767 Capt.
Posts: 616
Default

Originally Posted by angry tanker View Post
Conspiracy Theory - Company wants the LOA, The MEC wants over 60 back in the Left Seat...Discuss...
Then the 60ish guys can bid HKG or CDG.
JethroFDX is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices