iarapilot

I dont think it is only 100 pilots. The reason I say that is although there might be, say, 100 guys doing open time, vacation buyback during peak or otherwise, while in 4a2b, it goes a lot deeper than that.

I voted for our current contract. And, I didnt read the whole thing and think each paragraph through. I expected/assumed that our negotiators and lawyers were much wiser than I on the technicalities of the contract.

Then came the FDA LOA. Having worked at an FDA, I had an idea of what we might need. Not everything mind you, but a good idea.

Then I saw the way our leaders pushed it through. Saying it was the best we could get, how it improved scope, and many other untruths (IMO). And when others, who knew more than these guys did were called proponents of hysteria, discounted as the vocal minority (and they were), saying that they talked to one of our Captains who lived in HKG for years (big fat lie, BTW), I realized that it was just politics as usual. How our ex leaders will benefit from that Company friendly LOA I cant wait to see. And of course, our ex MEC Chair basically saying bidding the 777 may not be a good choice because there is no payrate.....and then bidding it himself, I realize that we are collectively just stupid sheep who, although when doing our jobs are critical thinkers, that critical thinking evaporates when our "leaders" state their view. Or should I say push their view. And of course, our apathy or whatever else doesnt help to much either.

I am in no way reference our current leadership, but time, and critical thinking will tell.

Too get to my point; we all need to do what is right in the context of the pilot group as a whole, to be able to have a decent contract. That means using the leverage we have.....that most dont realize we have (or care). Although maybe only 100 guys are doing the extra flying, 68% of us voted for the LOA. An LOA that the pilots and the Company would probably agree wasnt good for either side.....overall. I can only hope that the short sighted ME types will realize that in the long run, they are only hurting themselves and everyone else.

There, now I feel better.

Lifizgud

Anybody else notice that after the feeding frenzy, there's still a LOT of trips in OT for MEM F/O? Have they (we) finally hit the wall?

Tuck

No. Typical at least for the mem11. By sun I suspect well be down to a handful left except for the next day flying.

DLax85

Given the seats people were sitting in when the excess bids started ---- and given the seats people are sitting in now --- the max they could have furloughed was between 50-125 people.

The 700~800 overmanned claimed was based on the simplest of manning models/averages and was highly disingenious.

They knew it would have put them in a terrible position if they furloughed even half that amount and then the economy/loads snapped back ---- and that's exactly what it has done!!

DLax85

Good point!!

Now applying that lesson to the new FDA LOA that may be required to open the Cologne FDA ---- is that flying really all "locked up"??

We were told the HKG FDA would "memorialize" the future FDA flying, but that word sure sounds a lot like "intent".

Do a word search on the current FDA LOA, the actual word "scope" cannot be found.

Something we need to explicitly fix in the next LOA / Contract.

If that's their geniune intent, they'll have no qualms with putting it in writing.

DLax85

Hopefully, Dec 2012 gets here first.

...or at least Dec 2010.

The company admitted from the beginning that furloughing a pilot only made sense if they were going to keep that pilot out 2 years ---- less than that and it cost more to let them go, call them back and retrain them.

While the change in the regulated age to 65 did NOT singularly cause us to be overmanned, it surely has sustained any overmanning we may have had during the recession.

Without it ---- there would have been about 150 more pilots retiring in 2008 & 2009 --- and some more so far this year.

If the change in the regulated age never occurred, I don't believe they would have ever entered into 4A2B.

DLax85

...Shack!!

...and worth repeating: The Union need not sell on intent, but content!

Tuck

Just finished reading thru the 43 pages and any informed reading would realize that we, ALPA, got our As*!@@@ handed to us - and deserved it. The arguments from our side are just ridiculous - I feel bad that the two in house Memphis lawyers actually had to defend this side.

1) Unless I'm mistaken we generally use internal lawyers to negotiate - there are no "billable" hours - they are on salary.

2) Who cares whether the company determined we were 800 pilots overmanned or 100 overmanned. The CBA language clearly says "a pilot" and the Board has viewed that to mean any # of pilot/pilots. The thing that really hurts is that WE (by we I mean MW) initiated and wrote that paragraph all on his own. It doesn't matter at all if we hire before Dec 2010 - the Board clearly sided with the company on this one. Everyone should really read this - SS's email makes it sound like we sort of lost on some places but won in others. Uh, uh, we lost everywhere soundly.

3) How in the world could the MEC put out continual information in meetings and discussions over the past few years that we, ALPA, would win based on the "intent" of the CBA language when there was absolutely nothing to back this up except for one "confused" witness's memory. If you don't know what I'm talking about then read the decision. MW changed his story in the middle and could produce no notes, nothing about intent - so you really thought on a he said/she said the Arbitrator would go with the "he said" instead of the actual wording itself?

4) where in the world were all the professional negotiators during this time? If notes were needed why weren't they taking notes? Our NC team as of recently has gone to lengths to assure us that when negotiating they have several professional non-pilot labor negotiators in the room with them. ALPA has several $300,000+ salaried hi-power negotiators on payroll - I assume those guys have a wealth of experience and spend most of their time on the few block A carriers that are in negotiations. Where were they? Why does our side in the argument have only one witness - a pilot MW with no notes and a weak memory and the other side has professional labor lawyers pulling out notes?

5) MEC Chair SS says the Board favored "form over substance" - I'm not seeing any substance on our side whatsoever. I know you have to cling to something but that statement is ridiculous.

6) Any honest reading of the Board's decision would side with the company. Our arguments were ridiculously weak. I didn't really realize that until I read the report. We've been lead along the entire time by leadership that just wasn't well informed - that should be a concern to everyone. Who are the lawyers advising SS about this? Why in the world are we going to continue to argue these defeatist positions?

Finally, I assume Board member AM from ALPA dissented but the pdf file doesn't state this. Does anyone know? He probably had to swallow his integrity to dissent in the face of the evidence and realities but at least he's loyal (assuming he voted that way).

Tuck

I think it's unreasonable to expect a new CBA before any FDA LOA mods. But I do think it's necesary for the NC to not spent a second on any FDA until a new LOA modifiying 4a2b with clearer and fairer intent. As it is now the Board's decision very clearly allows the company to hire for peak and then enter 4a2b again in January - I almost expect that unless changes are made - soon!

MD11HOG

Kids are out and some guys like to spend time with family.


I got a call for something called "Draft" yesterday. I only get that on Dec 24 and 31.