Search

Notices
Cargo Part 121 cargo airlines

Loa Today

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 07-21-2007 | 06:54 AM
  #1  
CaptainMark's Avatar
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
From: FDX A300 CPT
Default Loa Today

Anyone going to the meeting today?...i will be there in my "VOTE NO" thong in protest!
Reply
Old 07-21-2007 | 07:05 AM
  #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,047
Likes: 0
From: 767 FO
Default

Not me, but if you find out how much one of them STV lines pay please pass it on.
Reply
Old 07-21-2007 | 07:26 AM
  #3  
Purpledriver's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Default

Now that the company has stated in writing (electronic type) that they only intend to send a guy on a STV for 1 month.....can they be held to that? It doesn't sound like a solid legal footing to me, but if anyone is going to be able to make it to the meeting, could they ask that question? The whole grieve it later BS won't help anyone once they are over there. I'm heading out to mil leave, but I'll check the board for updates....Thanks for anyone that can help out.
Reply
Old 07-21-2007 | 07:30 AM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,717
Likes: 0
From: Retired
Default

Originally Posted by CaptainMark
Anyone going to the meeting today?...i will be there in my "VOTE NO" thong in protest!
Bet it's a really small thong.
Reply
Old 07-21-2007 | 07:45 AM
  #5  
fedupbusdriver's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,642
Likes: 0
From: A300/310 Capt
Default

Originally Posted by Purpledriver
Now that the company has stated in writing (electronic type) that they only intend to send a guy on a STV for 1 month.....can they be held to that? It doesn't sound like a solid legal footing to me, but if anyone is going to be able to make it to the meeting, could they ask that question? The whole grieve it later BS won't help anyone once they are over there. I'm heading out to mil leave, but I'll check the board for updates....Thanks for anyone that can help out.
They might be held to "1 month being the standard", but who says that they have to use the standard. The statement is meaningless.
Reply
Old 07-21-2007 | 07:48 AM
  #6  
Haywood JB's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
From: Who knows...waiting for a bid
Default

The problem is legality. The legality lies in the document our mec and the company sign. It says up to three bid periods...so guess what, one bid period may be the norm or intention, but they will hold you to the letter of the law, ie the contract.
Reply
Old 07-21-2007 | 10:09 AM
  #7  
AerisArmis's Avatar
Slainge Var'
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,530
Likes: 0
From: Zeppelin Tail Gunner
Default

..i will be there in my "VOTE NO" thong in protest![/quote]

This time, put the crotch in the front! Eeeewwwwww!
Reply
Old 07-21-2007 | 10:37 AM
  #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
From: B757 Capt
Default

When intentions conflict with what is in black and white on a signed contract, guess which one wins..... and who spends "up to 3 bid periods" in the FDA of the Company's choice
Reply
Old 07-21-2007 | 10:58 AM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
From: B757 Capt
Default

I once worked for a gentleman who taught me about "..ly" words. Words like normally or usually. These are words ending in LY which seemingly (ops another one) convey a certain course of action will be taken. However, when a different, unexpected course of action ensues, the justification given is the current situation is outside the "normal" range of the agreement; or it is an "unusual" situation.

Every LY word represents a potential trap door, allowing one party of a contract to deviate from the agreement.

Hard numbers and concise language describing boundaries are needed to describe normal operations. I do not see this language in the current LOA or other follow on emails etc.
Reply
Old 07-21-2007 | 11:22 AM
  #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,535
Likes: 0
From: 1559
Default

Something about good intentions paving something to somewhere......

There is no way that JL's letter is binding. I'm shocked that the MEC is giving any weight to his statement. If, this was an issue that the MEC was against and JL had put out the same letter, they would be deriding management for having the audacity to think we would "trust" management.

I mean absolutely no disrespect to JL. I just firmly believe that senior management can, and will, leave him and his statement twisting in the wind if it suits them and the bean counters.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
av8torguy
Cargo
124
07-25-2007 11:12 PM
skypine27
Cargo
26
07-20-2007 07:10 AM
skypine27
Cargo
0
07-19-2007 06:36 AM
Rowdy1
Cargo
92
07-10-2007 04:34 AM
TonyM
Cargo
5
07-04-2007 08:39 PM

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



Your Privacy Choices