Latest Chairmans msg...Is it me?
04-23-2008 | 10:21 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,047
Likes: 0
From: 767 FO
I think our furlough section is full of loopholes. Many on this board argue that the reduction to 48 hours is just lowers the min and is not a requirement. They also argue that it does not mean every bid package would have to be reduced.
04-23-2008 | 11:24 AM
#12
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
From: B767/CPT
DW's spin and kool-ade
If you have read my posts you know I am not happy with Retro or the LOA.
But, that said, you and I should acknowledge the most senior ensured the anti-furlough sections in the contract are as robust as they are. Just as BC and DW allowed a poor LOA to be floated out for a vote, they could have floated out a lesser contract. This section is one of those that could have been different.
Whether it would have been right or wrong to do so is not my point. My point is we probably would have ratified a lesser contract if it had come our way.
DW wants to be thanked for those sections. No problem. A very heartfelt Thank you is order and you have it from me. If you read between the lines you can see he also would like us to treat his over 60 buds with more respect. I'm sure they have been writing him about the angry FOs. I support that too. We should treat everyone with respect unless they are a non-member.
But the LOA is still crappy.
Speaking of the LOA--Its inadequacy is about to give the company fits. We will not fill HKG. It will get a little better since it has to for the company to operate the domicile. The company and the union messed up with this one. Don't expect them to admit it. They know...
But, that said, you and I should acknowledge the most senior ensured the anti-furlough sections in the contract are as robust as they are. Just as BC and DW allowed a poor LOA to be floated out for a vote, they could have floated out a lesser contract. This section is one of those that could have been different.
Whether it would have been right or wrong to do so is not my point. My point is we probably would have ratified a lesser contract if it had come our way.
DW wants to be thanked for those sections. No problem. A very heartfelt Thank you is order and you have it from me. If you read between the lines you can see he also would like us to treat his over 60 buds with more respect. I'm sure they have been writing him about the angry FOs. I support that too. We should treat everyone with respect unless they are a non-member.
But the LOA is still crappy.
Speaking of the LOA--Its inadequacy is about to give the company fits. We will not fill HKG. It will get a little better since it has to for the company to operate the domicile. The company and the union messed up with this one. Don't expect them to admit it. They know...
DW wants thanks, for what? Did any significant number of people read the 1999 CBA (you know the parking lot deal, the one "forced on us, etc etc) ? This section was in that agreement, how does DW expect credit for that? By keeping status quo. Do you think that if they removed that section no one would have noticed? So much is reiterated by the union leadership of how great a deal this contract is and how X and Y have been improved, but we all have seen gains on paper negated by increased productivity, reduced quality of life, revamped scheduling procedures, new ways of putting training into monthly schedules, etc. And for what? VEBA, HRA's, Grid penalities (what was the costing on that one), Increase in retiree %'s for a few, 380 pay rates (777?), SCOPE (better go back a read a side by side comparison to see just how much was gained).
It ain't so just because DW says it is and we had better come to terms with that fact. One thing DW has learned, and learned well, is how to spin, and how to be an ALPA "good ole boy". Take credit for everything that is good and be silent or blame someone else for everything bad.
His latest tactic to blame the company and talk about problematic bids is ridiculous, in light of the fact that the union has not challenged anything the company has done.
The company had planned on 700+ pilots leaving in the next 5 years and planned accordingly. DW age 65 stance "the right thing to do" in addition to retro provisions for backseaters could hardly have been fortold by the company.
I am 100% pro union but we are only as strong as our weakest "leader" or least informed member.
04-23-2008 | 11:41 AM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
From: MD11
DW wants thanks, for what? Did any significant number of people read the 1999 CBA (you know the parking lot deal, the one "forced on us, etc etc) ? This section was in that agreement, how does DW expect credit for that? By keeping status quo. Do you think that if they removed that section no one would have noticed? So much is reiterated by the union leadership of how great a deal this contract is and how X and Y have been improved, but we all have seen gains on paper negated by increased productivity, reduced quality of life, revamped scheduling procedures, new ways of putting training into monthly schedules, etc. And for what? VEBA, HRA's, Grid penalities (what was the costing on that one), Increase in retiree %'s for a few, 380 pay rates (777?), SCOPE (better go back a read a side by side comparison to see just how much was gained).
It ain't so just because DW says it is and we had better come to terms with that fact. One thing DW has learned, and learned well, is how to spin, and how to be an ALPA "good ole boy". Take credit for everything that is good and be silent or blame someone else for everything bad.
His latest tactic to blame the company and talk about problematic bids is ridiculous, in light of the fact that the union has not challenged anything the company has done.
The company had planned on 700+ pilots leaving in the next 5 years and planned accordingly. DW age 65 stance "the right thing to do" in addition to retro provisions for backseaters could hardly have been fortold by the company.
I am 100% pro union but we are only as strong as our weakest "leader" or least informed member.
It ain't so just because DW says it is and we had better come to terms with that fact. One thing DW has learned, and learned well, is how to spin, and how to be an ALPA "good ole boy". Take credit for everything that is good and be silent or blame someone else for everything bad.
His latest tactic to blame the company and talk about problematic bids is ridiculous, in light of the fact that the union has not challenged anything the company has done.
The company had planned on 700+ pilots leaving in the next 5 years and planned accordingly. DW age 65 stance "the right thing to do" in addition to retro provisions for backseaters could hardly have been fortold by the company.
I am 100% pro union but we are only as strong as our weakest "leader" or least informed member.
04-23-2008 | 11:51 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Likes: 0
So you don't want to thank the older guys for putting and/or keeping our furlough provisions in the contract? Fine. But I am thankful.
DW was talking about getting along with the older guys. He was trying to say the younger guys have the benefit of not being furloughed right now.
You are right in that the older guys got the better part of the deal. ALPA standard...
What do expect DW to put in his "Chairman's Message"? All the bad stuff he has done with one or two positive things at the end? Give me a break.
DW was talking about getting along with the older guys. He was trying to say the younger guys have the benefit of not being furloughed right now.
You are right in that the older guys got the better part of the deal. ALPA standard...
What do expect DW to put in his "Chairman's Message"? All the bad stuff he has done with one or two positive things at the end? Give me a break.
04-23-2008 | 01:46 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,535
Likes: 0
From: 1559
DW wants thanks, for what? Did any significant number of people read the 1999 CBA (you know the parking lot deal, the one "forced on us, etc etc) ? This section was in that agreement, how does DW expect credit for that?
I am 100% pro union but we are only as strong as our weakest "leader" or least informed member.
I am 100% pro union but we are only as strong as our weakest "leader" or least informed member.
04-23-2008 | 01:48 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
From: 57 Capt
DW wants thanks, for what? Did any significant number of people read the 1999 CBA (you know the parking lot deal, the one "forced on us, etc etc) ? This section was in that agreement, how does DW expect credit for that? By keeping status quo. Do you think that if they removed that section no one would have noticed? So much is reiterated by the union leadership of how great a deal this contract is and how X and Y have been improved, but we all have seen gains on paper negated by increased productivity, reduced quality of life, revamped scheduling procedures, new ways of putting training into monthly schedules, etc. And for what? VEBA, HRA's, Grid penalities (what was the costing on that one), Increase in retiree %'s for a few, 380 pay rates (777?), SCOPE (better go back a read a side by side comparison to see just how much was gained).
It ain't so just because DW says it is and we had better come to terms with that fact. One thing DW has learned, and learned well, is how to spin, and how to be an ALPA "good ole boy". Take credit for everything that is good and be silent or blame someone else for everything bad.
His latest tactic to blame the company and talk about problematic bids is ridiculous, in light of the fact that the union has not challenged anything the company has done.
The company had planned on 700+ pilots leaving in the next 5 years and planned accordingly. DW age 65 stance "the right thing to do" in addition to retro provisions for backseaters could hardly have been fortold by the company.
I am 100% pro union but we are only as strong as our weakest "leader" or least informed member.
It ain't so just because DW says it is and we had better come to terms with that fact. One thing DW has learned, and learned well, is how to spin, and how to be an ALPA "good ole boy". Take credit for everything that is good and be silent or blame someone else for everything bad.
His latest tactic to blame the company and talk about problematic bids is ridiculous, in light of the fact that the union has not challenged anything the company has done.
The company had planned on 700+ pilots leaving in the next 5 years and planned accordingly. DW age 65 stance "the right thing to do" in addition to retro provisions for backseaters could hardly have been fortold by the company.
I am 100% pro union but we are only as strong as our weakest "leader" or least informed member.
perfectly said---i just wish you could publish this and send it out as a "rebuttal to the chairmans message."
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
