4a2b question $$$
 

Who kept a "full paycheck" during this scam that was thrust upon the crewforce ? I am not liking what I am hearing ......................... Do we have hypocrytes amongst our group and self professed back slappers ???

Not I, but I sure did enjoy the extra days off!

Gotta second that, those extra days off were great!

I also second that one!

What is your definition of hypocrite in this scenario? No, I didnt take a pay cut to speak of in the last year. But I did have to work harder ( i.e. more butt time in the seat). I used my seniority to bid high paying Intl lines (instead of easy domestic) with lots of block over 8 pay and some C/O. Every month I worked less than min days off and flew ZERO DFT/VLT. I dont see that as being a hypocrite or a back slapper, just proper bidding. And I enjoyed my usual time off also.

Same here. Flew SiBA, blocked 180hrs last year and enjoyed some extra time off. NO dft/vlt. Didn't notice much of a paycut. Zero X wives though.....

Smartest move you can make.

Cheaper to keep her....or kill her....whichever. ;)

Now you tell me.

- Tiger Woods

P.S. Keep her away from the nine iron.

Box, to be more specific, I find it disgusting when I have seen or heard of those amongst us that are enjoying 130 to 150 credit hour bid months, at a time when a majority of the crewforce was getting half or less of that.
Can you explain to me why our MEC was getting a "full paycheck" when those they are representing were not ? To what end are we as a group willing to accept the unacceptable ? I find it more and more difficult to envision any possiblity of unity amongst this group, when there are clearly those that feel "entitled to get theirs" and watch everyone around them "lose theirs". The end result of the 4a2b debacle is a divisiveness that will not go away for years to come .........................hopefully Leadership is on the way but it will be long after I have left this place.

Indefinitely would be my guess.

We have another opportunity to show what kind of nads we have if a CGN base is announced; due to the fact that another FDA LOA will probably be needed. We had ALL of the leverage last time and ended up with something much less than we should have, IMO of course. It would be nice to hear our Union doing some posturing for this upcoming probability.

This is the same group who touted and extolled the virtues of "shared sacrifice". I guess it is "ok" to "sacrifice" with my money.....but not theirs.:cool::mad:

First, we have been thru this before.

Only the MEC Chair, Vice-Chair, and Treasurer are compensated at 96 (or is it 98) hours a month. When we took the 4a2b cut, I immediately contacted the old Treasurer and he assured me that they would voluntarily take a cut. In my opinion, it was paltry.

While it was inadequate in my opinion, in all fairness, those guys did it voluntarily. If they took enough of a cut so I felt I got my pound of flesh, who's to say my neighbor would think it was enough. You're never going to satisfy everyone. You could count me among the unsatisfied.

In the end, they ended up taking about a 6% cut + or - when they voluntarily got rid of one of their pay provisions. The former Treasurer took the biggest percentage, the Former MEC chair took the smallest. While they all took the same cut, the difference had to do with what the amount was as a percentage of their total pay.....I did the numbers once. It was based on my best guess at their payrate. I pressed the old Treasurer to disclose to the membership what they did since it deviated from the ALPA bylaws on compensation. He said I could come in and he would show me. A message line went out saying they took a 7% cut voluntarily, but not how those numbers were derived. The argument was that since it was a voluntary give back by those receiving the compensation, then it was not necessary. I can't fault the logic, though it was not the answer I wanted.

I spoke with this at length with my old block rep and with Fred. If I remember correctly, a resolution was voted on but was not passed by the last MEC to cut the pay of the top three...My understanding was that it did not pass as the MEC did not want to discourage any new candidate for running for the position. One of those new candidates was my block rep and our new treasurer (take that for what it is worth). Some felt there was little likelyhood of the new MEC Chair being one of the ones who was previously compensated.

I for one am happy with the leadership we have in place. While I was adamant that the top three of the last group should share the sacrifice they were touting....since it came about under their watch, I don't feel the same about the new guys. Don't begrudge them the pay....

Some of the same guys in and out of the MEC who were upset of the lack of "shared sacrifice" were some of the same guys who actively supported the candidacy of the guys we have now. They wanted them to have the full benefit of the pay provisions.

This complaint about the MEC is about a year too late and is suspicious as it comes as we are probably in the middle of Negotiating a new LOA for HKG and preparing for negotiations. Let's not let old issues drive a wedge between our pilot group and our leadership at a critical time. If we are going to do that....then lets start with geezer bashing....that's easy :D
(Tongue in cheek for our more seasoned sensitive types)

This is my best recollection. Talk to your block rep and they can give you the details. None of this was done in the dark, though there were no hourly updates on Fox News about it either. Though I am not happy about a lot of the decisions of the last set of officers, it is inaccurate to say they didn't share the sacrifice............you just have to make your own decision about the size of their share. It was a concern for me then....it is not now.

Not the same group.....the two running for new positions were not elected

We are in the middle of negotiating a new LOA for HKG? When are they going to tell the rest of us? I guess unity and mushrooms are grown the same way. Besides, I though we already had the best we are gonna get.

That was a wild guess on my part...........let's not sow hate and discontent. It used to grate on me when people called this message board 12 angry men........I think it's beginning to live up to it's moniker. Just like I think the CIA is most effective when they aren't testifying to congress in the middle of operations, I would hope that our negotiating committee wouldn't run around spouting things they are working on with the company prematurely...........

Besides, MY NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE SPEAKS FOR ME......I trust them to do that, and I trust them to tell me what they've done when they find it appropriate. If they screw up, we replace them....not the system......I like Republics better than Democracies.....then tend to work better.

Some might argue that we are always in negotiations......(In one of the best conspiracy theories of modern times) Perhaps the bid is delayed until the power we gave the MEC Chairman (to agree to HKG LOA changes without membership ratification) in LOA #2 is exercised.

I know if I were the company, I would not want to put a bid out for a MD-11 domicile in HKG in an improving shipping environment and not be able to fill it. When freight is down, an unfilled bid probably goes unnoticed. I wouldn't want to be the guy who makes the decision to save the company a nickel and cost them a dollar right now.

Enough......I've got a holiday weekend to enjoy thanks to the sacrifices of men and women in Uniform.........without them, we wouldn't be able to have these petty arguments.

Wow I hate it when discontent and hate is sowed too. Will the pro discontent and hate guys please stand up. Your orignal post had us in the middle of negotiating a new loa. That was news to me. If you say you dont know but you hope we are that is different.

Negotiating a LOA when a contract is approaching its amendable date is a pretty big decision. And pretty stupid if you ask me. What is the purpose of an LOA other than to "amend" the contract. I would hope that there would be some communication before we go down that path. I know, we can do another wilson poll.

Some might argue that we are in constant negotiation and the problem comes when the only issues we are negotiating are the issues important to the company. Happy 4th.

Just to clarify, I was referring to the top three in the previous Administration..............in addition I do hold the last MEC accountable for not passing the resoultion to reduce MEC compensation in proportion with the Line guys sacrifices.

I completely understand

It was a long diatribe I had, but I said we were "probably" in the middle of negotiating an LOA. Since I am a dumb pilot and not a "Soothsayer" (I love saying that word....especially when you simulate a lisp) I figured it was obvious it was a WAG on my part. It was easy to miss though

Happy 4th......Long Live the REPUBLIC!

I think you added the "probably" on your edit, but I cant prove it. My bad.

That's not what I edited. To be fair, I can't prove it either. I had attributed some items to Fred Buesser, but since he is not in a position to defend himself I figured it wasn't right. I also decided to take out some things had to do with an offline conversation with WR our former Treasurer. I couldn't remember the exact conversation and didn't want to attribute anything to him that was not accurate.

You can believe me or not.....Sounds like lately all you are doing is picking fights with people LAG. Is it really easier to believe that I edited the "Probably" rather than the fact you might have overlooked one word on an overly wordy ego driven diatribe on my part?

Ad Hominem works
 

Well I don't want to pick a fight but I read it 3 times. I was carefull because it was a definitive statement and sounded like it was part of another conversation with members of the MEC. It sounded like you knew what you were talking about.

Perception and truth are different things. I reviewed my posts and cant find where I picked a fight. I did see where foxhunter attacks my post, attacks me, backs up my post, responds to my post, denies responding to my post and denies senility all in 5 straight posts.

Would love to see an example of where I picked a fight if you can point to one.

But you have made this conversation about me instead of about whether it is a good idea to negotiate a LOA when the contract is approaching the amendable date.

Actually LAG the conversation I entered was about MEC officers retaining pay during 4a2B. I have my opinion about what should be going on. I'll share it with my block rep. You should do the same.

Brother, you either trust me and take my word for it and we can have a productive conversation......or call me a liar. If you imply that I edited my post to win a petty argument, I call that picking a fight. Let's keep the conversation here about important things and not go off on tangents.....

I'm done.

[quote=FDXLAG;836773] I was carefull ...


lurn two spel oar goe too privut messuges:D

Glad u r done, I didnt imply anything. I said I think you added probably during your edit. We obviously have 2 different memories of the event. When I 1st read your post there was no probably, you remember it differently, makes no difference to me. Since your last edit was prior to our disagreement on the word probably you should be able to logically conclude I dont think you edited it to "win a petty argument". I think you edited to make the changes you already discussed and added the word probably without realizing it. You want to fight about it great.

Has nothing to do with whether we should be negotiating a loa and a contract at same time. You think it is a good idea and are hoping it is so. I dont.

Ja woal mein poster approval nazi. Learn to spell and quit picking fights. Big day ahead. ;)

[QUOTE=FDXLAG;836837]Glad u r done, I didnt imply anything. I said I think you added probably during your edit. We obviously have 2 different memories of the event. When I 1st read your post there was no probably, you remember it differently, makes no difference to me. Since your last edit was prior to our disagreement on the word probably you should be able to logically conclude I dont think you edited it to "win a petty argument". I think you edited to make the changes you already discussed and added the word probably without realizing it. You want to fight about it great.

Has nothing to do with whether we should be negotiating a loa and a contract at same time. You think it is a good idea and are hoping it is so. I dont.[/QUOTE

OK....I misread you...I apologize......for the record, I don't think it is a good idea, though I think it is likely the company may try it......once again, a wag.......more so for CGN then HKG......That being said...if the company unilaterally improved HKG to induce more to bid......I don't have a problem with that since SS can approve any change to LOA IAW authority given to him in LOA#2. I am not willing to give up any negotiating capital to improve HKG though. As far as CGN goes.....if they want an LOA for that.....well then we can put it in a new contract.

Obviously.:rolleyes:

Glad you agree or are you trying to pick a fight?;)