|
Short answer is I don't know, but why don't you ask the same question on the other boards and we'll ask FE to comment....
|
Originally Posted by Albief15
(Post 413185)
Skypine: Okay...here's the scoop:
I called the sec/treasurer on the issue. His response: "Dude, you SECONDED the motion!" He was right. We went over each item in a conference call. The way (N) was explained was it was simply a recognition that there will be issues in a new domicle that pop up that can be tweaked between both parties without a lot of fanfare. The SIG, Hotel Committee, legal, and the other team do the same thing day to day. Looking at it from my inside perspective and in the context of watch the leadership work very hard in Feb and Mar to have a plan in case we got to where we are now, I tended to view things from the perspective of a guy convinced the union was working very hard for the bros....all of them. As Sean McDonald pointed out--to us privately and to his block publically...we ALREADY do this routinely and the intent is to not have to have an LOA every time a pick up point is moved or a hotel used for a STBY is changed. In that context...I agree. I still say the LOA...however an aberation...is improved by the stuff that was added in with these amendments. I put my John Hancock on the thing and said "Yeah...its better and a step in the right direction". Despite age 60 changes, cancelled bids, accepted fare debates, etc...I think the honest intent is to find a way to wok on the HKG issues together and improve the situation for the guys over there. Period. No hyphens, coded messages, or doublespeak involved... If any of us on the MEC got wind the company wanted to make any changes that we thought we detrimental to the team, we would certainly want to address it as a group. There would not be a unilateral decision by the chairman (who will NOT be DW in less than a year BTW....so don't make this a DW issue...) unless it was a short "yeah...that would be good for the bros" deal. Anything negative would be brought back to the team to hash out. Now...the part that will irk the MEC leadership: I really couldn't care less if this passed or not. I bid HKG because I am willing to suck up a lot of pain to jump 100 bucks in my pay rate. I'd accept tax equilization and a section 6 move option and commute half way around the world to quit having to be a chamelon FO and get to do the crew brief. And guys...with the company offering bids then yanking them...then doing excess bids...and yanking them....and ALPA National doing surveys about age 60 and political candidates...I UNDERSTAND completely if you feel like you get left on the sidelines about your input at times and feel like you cannot trust anyone. I get it. I see completely how you could look at (N) and see a completely different picture than I did. All I can say is that as long as I'm on the MEC I don't think any inputs will come down and steamroll you as a result of (N). I don't say that because I a a sweet guy who loves ya.....I say in because I've seen the same committment and grit in some of the other members of the MEC. The intent of the paragraph is that if there is a better way to do things that we find--we'll do it. We do not intend to put you on a chicken truck to CAN in the middle of the night, but if we can get you a hydrofoil ride to Discovery Bay instead of a bus it would probably seem like a good deal to all concerned. THAT is the intent. If you see something else...I understand...vote as you see fit. "We aren't going to sell this to you" is a mantra I have heard from several MEC members I respect. However--in my heart of hearts--I don't think there is any manevolent intent in that provision. It is there to allow us to tweak things for the better if we see a chance to do so and to do it quickly. It appears I'll be a domestic FO for a long time. This LOA proably won't affect me for the next 3 years I'll be on the MEC directly. But I think its an improvement, and despite the concerns echoed here I think it will make it better for the dudes over there. But the wonderful thing is you get to vote. If you want to chat about this....call me. I'll share what I do know. Back to "how did I miss that?": Any of you ever sit in meetings from 0800-1830 and listen to dudes just go on and on and on? Quite frankly, union work is rewarding at times when you feel like you get to make a difference. Most of the time, however, it is time listening to 80% of what you already know trying to glean the 20% you don't know while wearing an uncomfortable set of clothes. I'm proud to be there--but it is mind numbing at times. I detested LOA I, and basically have rolled into this LOA improvement effort going "yeah, okay....whatever....now let's move to contract 2010...." Honestly--it hasn't been my front burner issue. You can throw spears at me for that if you'd like--but I'm being very open after being sick 3 days and enjoying my recovery with a cold margarita. My focus since I came here has been on the next contract, mitigated the damage from age 60 changes, and trying to find a way to pull us back together as a group. Unfortunately, events have made keeping every dude on the property my newest number one priority. I don't want to say this LOA isn't important to me, as anything that improves our collective situation is good for all us. But honestly--this one ain't personal. Vote your heart. My positions on every issue the last few years has been a matter of public record--you don't have to tell anyone how you vote but I think if you look long and hard at this you'll see more good stuff than bad. |
Side question, does anyone read the ALPA board? I post here because guys seem to read stuff here. For better or worse, APC has become the default FedEX ***** Board. The ALPA board is almost never mentioned.
I can't ever remember a time when I saw a guy browsing the ALPA forum in the crew lounge or hearing a guy say "I was reading this post on the ALPA board..." Edit.: The word B i t C H is censored?? How are guys supposed to talk about their ex wives?? (present wives too) |
Thanks for the post Albie
Albie -
First, thank you again for coming on APC and posting this type of response....it truly, is greatly appreciated by me....and my guess, by many others.:) Now to a couple of your points...
Originally Posted by Albief15
(Post 413185)
...The way (N) was explained was it was simply a recognition that there will be issues in a new domicle that pop up that can be tweaked between both parties without a lot of fanfare. The SIG, Hotel Committee, legal, and the other team do the same thing day to day. ...As Sean McDonald pointed out--to us privately and to his block publically...we ALREADY do this routinely and the intent is to not have to have an LOA every time a pick up point is moved or a hotel used for a STBY is changed. In that context...I agree.
If that's the case---the MEC and the company won't mind removing it.
Originally Posted by Albief15
(Post 413185)
....If any of us on the MEC got wind the company wanted to make any changes that we thought we detrimental to the team, we would certainly want to address it as a group. There would not be a unilateral decision by the chairman (who will NOT be DW in less than a year BTW....so don't make this a DW issue...) unless it was a short "yeah...that would be good for the bros" deal. Anything negative would be brought back to the team to hash out....
(Once again, if he already has that under some other ALPA provision/by-law --- why is it added?) You're asking folks to "trust" whomever the MEC Chairman is to determine two things --- what issues are "big" vs "small", and which are "determintal" and which are "not". As you know from last summers initial FDA LOA debates, there is much disagreement on both levels.
Originally Posted by Albief15,413185
...Now...the part that will irk the MEC leadership: I really couldn't care less if this passed or not.
Originally Posted by Albief15,413185
...All I can say is that as long as I'm on the MEC I don't think any inputs will come down and steamroll you as a result of (N).
Originally Posted by Albief15,413185
..."We aren't going to sell this to you" is a mantra I have heard from several MEC members I respect.
Originally Posted by Albief15,413185
This LOA proably won't affect me for the next 3 years I'll be on the MEC directly.
Originally Posted by Albief15,413185
Back to "how did I miss that?"...
Originally Posted by Albief15,413185
My focus since I came here has been on the next contract, mitigated the damage from age 60 changes, and trying to find a way to pull us back together as a group. Unfortunately, events have made keeping every dude on the property my newest number one priority.
Thank you again for another outstanding post. VR, In Unity, DLax |
Albie,
I think everyone appreciates new blood in the MEC and it seems you are very honest and level-headed. I am sure you will be a great addition to the MEC. I will caution you on about implying the LOA will not effect you. Anytime, a portion of the wide-body fleet goes extremely junior, it indirectly effects everyones seniority. Plus, I think the union needs to look long term at these FDAs. I guarantee you company's strategic planning and corporate development people are looking very hard at HKG. Look at how much the company pays on deadheads to the Pacific in the MD-11. How much revenue is lost because we do not have MD-11 crews in the system when a typhoon hits or the system breaks down due to maintenance or delays? I am sure these are things the strategic planning department are looking at. And after they get all the kinks out of HKG, I am 100% sure they will analyze the potential savings in money and crews by shifting 20-30% (random guess, could even be more) of the Pacific flying in ANC, LAX, and MEM to HKG. What do you think the impact will be then? This LOA and the establishing of domiciles in HKG, and eventually Europe, are going to have a profound effect on our crewforce. In fact, the establishment of the HKG domicile (and the LOA), I believe could be of more importance than the upcoming contract |
Thanks, Albie, for the good work. For those of you wanting to throw spears, I would suggest we give him a break. They try to throw a lot of BS at these guys.
That said, LOA 2 is really up to the membership not the MEC. The first was a different story. It's up to us to look at the amendment like a lawyer and imagine what folly is possible with the wording as it is. I would rather paragraph N say 3/4 vote of the MEC. That would take any single individual out of the mix in case he or she decided to go off the reservation. Why did I say she? We don't know who our next MEC will be. Say what you want about DW but it could be worse. I think checks and balances would make the LOA better. The MEC Chair would have to sell changes to the MEC. I like that much better. |
What I said was the LOA would not affect me DIRECTLY. I bid HKG on 08-02 but didnt get it. So...I won't be dealing DIRECTLY with the transportation, moving, and storage issues.
Of course it affects me as a part of the pilot group. It also have impact on guys not even on the property yet. I probably could have worded that better, but I did not mean in does't affect the pilot group. I have no idea how new domiciles will effect the system form long term, but I tend to agree that DHs to Asia and Europe will probably be reduced. If I ran FDX I'd look for ways to optimize productivity and minimize costs. I remember some discussion a year or so back that eventually MD-10s/11s might be flying out of there, and I think the ramifications on DHs is obvious. However, we don't get to build the pairings...only insure they are done conractually. Again--yeah--LOAs affect ALL of us. However, in the short term, they affect some of us more directly...and that is what I meant to imply. |
Originally Posted by Albief15
(Post 413185)
Skypine: Okay...here's the scoop:
I called the sec/treasurer on the issue. His response: "Dude, you SECONDED the motion!" He was right. We went over each item in a conference call. The way (N) was explained was it was simply a recognition that there will be issues in a new domicle that pop up that can be tweaked between both parties without a lot of fanfare. The SIG, Hotel Committee, legal, and the other team do the same thing day to day. Looking at it from my inside perspective and in the context of watch the leadership work very hard in Feb and Mar to have a plan in case we got to where we are now, I tended to view things from the perspective of a guy convinced the union was working very hard for the bros....all of them. As Sean McDonald pointed out--to us privately and to his block publically...we ALREADY do this routinely and the intent is to not have to have an LOA every time a pick up point is moved or a hotel used for a STBY is changed. In that context...I agree. I still say the LOA...however an aberation...is improved by the stuff that was added in with these amendments. I put my John Hancock on the thing and said "Yeah...its better and a step in the right direction". Despite age 60 changes, cancelled bids, accepted fare debates, etc...I think the honest intent is to find a way to wok on the HKG issues together and improve the situation for the guys over there. Period. No hyphens, coded messages, or doublespeak involved... If any of us on the MEC got wind the company wanted to make any changes that we thought we detrimental to the team, we would certainly want to address it as a group. There would not be a unilateral decision by the chairman (who will NOT be DW in less than a year BTW....so don't make this a DW issue...) unless it was a short "yeah...that would be good for the bros" deal. Anything negative would be brought back to the team to hash out. Now...the part that will irk the MEC leadership: I really couldn't care less if this passed or not. I bid HKG because I am willing to suck up a lot of pain to jump 100 bucks in my pay rate. I'd accept tax equilization and a section 6 move option and commute half way around the world to quit having to be a chamelon FO and get to do the crew brief. And guys...with the company offering bids then yanking them...then doing excess bids...and yanking them....and ALPA National doing surveys about age 60 and political candidates...I UNDERSTAND completely if you feel like you get left on the sidelines about your input at times and feel like you cannot trust anyone. I get it. I see completely how you could look at (N) and see a completely different picture than I did. All I can say is that as long as I'm on the MEC I don't think any inputs will come down and steamroll you as a result of (N). I don't say that because I a a sweet guy who loves ya.....I say in because I've seen the same committment and grit in some of the other members of the MEC. The intent of the paragraph is that if there is a better way to do things that we find--we'll do it. We do not intend to put you on a chicken truck to CAN in the middle of the night, but if we can get you a hydrofoil ride to Discovery Bay instead of a bus it would probably seem like a good deal to all concerned. THAT is the intent. If you see something else...I understand...vote as you see fit. "We aren't going to sell this to you" is a mantra I have heard from several MEC members I respect. However--in my heart of hearts--I don't think there is any manevolent intent in that provision. It is there to allow us to tweak things for the better if we see a chance to do so and to do it quickly. It appears I'll be a domestic FO for a long time. This LOA proably won't affect me for the next 3 years I'll be on the MEC directly. But I think its an improvement, and despite the concerns echoed here I think it will make it better for the dudes over there. But the wonderful thing is you get to vote. If you want to chat about this....call me. I'll share what I do know. Back to "how did I miss that?": Any of you ever sit in meetings from 0800-1830 and listen to dudes just go on and on and on? Quite frankly, union work is rewarding at times when you feel like you get to make a difference. Most of the time, however, it is time listening to 80% of what you already know trying to glean the 20% you don't know while wearing an uncomfortable set of clothes. I'm proud to be there--but it is mind numbing at times. I detested LOA I, and basically have rolled into this LOA improvement effort going "yeah, okay....whatever....now let's move to contract 2010...." Honestly--it hasn't been my front burner issue. You can throw spears at me for that if you'd like--but I'm being very open after being sick 3 days and enjoying my recovery with a cold margarita. My focus since I came here has been on the next contract, mitigated the damage from age 60 changes, and trying to find a way to pull us back together as a group. Unfortunately, events have made keeping every dude on the property my newest number one priority. I don't want to say this LOA isn't important to me, as anything that improves our collective situation is good for all us. But honestly--this one ain't personal. Vote your heart. My positions on every issue the last few years has been a matter of public record--you don't have to tell anyone how you vote but I think if you look long and hard at this you'll see more good stuff than bad. I would like to comment on a few items that you spoke of. I called the sec/treasurer on the issue. His response: "Dude, you SECONDED the motion!" He was right. ...He may have been right, but after analyzing that section again, hopefully both of you saw the deficiencies. The way (N) was explained ....I hope that in your work as a rep that when a proposal is made, that not only do you read it with the intent that is proposed, but more importantly read it with the mal-intent that could actually happen because of the loose wording. There are always different angles to the meaning of something, regardless of intent. This is what our ALPA lawyers should be zeroing in on. But as a rep, you and everyone else should be also. SkypeIn makes a few applicable points with reference to the ground transportation and double DH comment. I still say the LOA...however an aberation...is improved by the stuff that was added in with these amendments..... The LOA IS an aberation from our previous Section 6 in many ways. Because our growth for years to come will be international, the LOA and version 2 will be with us forever. Whatever we give the Company now, we will never get back in future negotiations. Because LOA1 was, IMO, a very bad offer which set a precedent for things to come with regard to new FDA's, I voted no. Because LOA2 is built upon LOA1, and contains all of the detrimental items in LOA1 that is not good for the pilots long term, I certainly cannot support it. The Company offered us cr@p with LOA1. For them to go around the Union and offer unilateral enhancements while the vote and bidding were ongoing was pathetic; on their part AND the Unions! They lowballed us, we bit, and then they paid for it by not filling the seats in HKG. I say let them pay for it without sweetening the pot so they can fill the seats. Maybe if that happened, a whole rewrite of the LOA might solve their problem. Wishfull thinking, I know. Remember.....once we sign off on an agreement, we will never get anything back in the future. If any of us on the MEC got wind the company wanted to make any changes that we thought we detrimental to the team, we would certainly want to address it as a group .....I do believe that you are sincere in this statement. But after the 11 to 1 vote on LOA1, age 60, and other decisions that have been made, a lot of us arent very trusting in the MEC as a whole. To be called proponents of hysteria, being told it is the best we could get, marketing type catch phrases like "the right thing", age 60, it will go senior....among other stuff that has happened.....you get my point. So far the proponents seem to have been correct and LOA1 was not the best we could get and, it certainly did not go senior.....that is a fact, IMO opinion of course. An aknowledgement by the MEC on these points would go a long way in restoring the faith of the "team" (membership). All I can say is that as long as I'm on the MEC I don't think any inputs will come down and steamroll you as a result of (N).....I laud your positive go get em attitude....seriously. But if you were on the MEC back during the original LOA vote, it would have been 10-2. At least EI would have had a partner in his outcast status! :rolleyes: Unless you have some swami type persuasive abilities, things may not happen the way you hope. The membership was certainly steamrolled into voting yea on the LOA1! The commitment you see in the MEC versus what others of us see in the MEC might differ.....in reference to what the MEC sees as acceptable to offer us in negotiations in the future. I think that in the not to distant future, many more pilots will realize that the LOA was not a good thing, to put it mildly. I detested LOA I, and basically have rolled into this LOA improvement effort going "yeah, okay....whatever....now let's move to contract 2010......Dont be cynical.If you think LOA1 sucked, stick with your guns and dont accept it if there is a chance that it can REALLY be improved! Contract 2010 will not correct any deficiencies in the LOA, once they are "memorialized", I mean commemorated! My intent is not to be some preacher schmuck here. I just hope that you would ALWAYS look at the negative side to an agreement or proposal, just like you would in an air to air with an opponent. With some, once they get in a leadership position, they tend to think differently than before they achieved that leadership role. Dont turn into a sheep and follow the flock without assuming the worst with regard to a particular situation. And, good luck! ;) |
Originally Posted by Albief15
(Post 413304)
What I said was the LOA would not affect me DIRECTLY. I bid HKG on 08-02 but didnt get it. So...I won't be dealing DIRECTLY with the transportation, moving, and storage issues.
Of course it affects me as a part of the pilot group. It also have impact on guys not even on the property yet. I probably could have worded that better, but I did not mean in does't affect the pilot group. I have no idea how new domiciles will effect the system form long term, but I tend to agree that DHs to Asia and Europe will probably be reduced. If I ran FDX I'd look for ways to optimize productivity and minimize costs. I remember some discussion a year or so back that eventually MD-10s/11s might be flying out of there, and I think the ramifications on DHs is obvious. However, we don't get to build the pairings...only insure they are done conractually. Again--yeah--LOAs affect ALL of us. However, in the short term, they affect some of us more directly...and that is what I meant to imply. And if I were the union I would look to get a little something something for agreeing to the savings. We haven't. How much did the company save for training on a day off? Did we get anything for it (besides the lower BLG threat)? We all make mistakes, like you I originally liked training on a day off. But we should learn from our mistakes. Being a MEC member does not mean never having to say your sorry. Thanks for serving, no one better for block 7 rep. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:12 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands