Kind of. For those of us that have, in the past, spent hundreds of hours doing the work, away from our families, it is always a bit of a sore spot when someone says they are a "volunteer", but have done almost nothing. I realize that some of the committees are like that, but the truth is that for each committee, almost all the work gets done by at most 3 people. The rest are just names.

So, yes, there is a litmus of sorts, because those that are "just names" really do not have much insight into how the process really works.

You won't find anyone that is a bigger proponent of having ALPA on our property, than me. Having said that, I would say that "the process" has not worked here, yet.

Part of that can be blamed on the membership, and part on our leadership.

So there is a litmus test so you 3 hardworkers can keep your committee pure? No doubt I have seen it.

Ha, hardly. In my experience, we found ourselves constantly having to beg for help and rarely getting it. After awhile it become apparent that we would spend more time trying to get people to come in and do the work than just do it ourselves. Part of that is that the rest of the people need to just come in, unasked, and roll their sleeves up and get spooled up as to what is going on. Instead, we get a lot of people that want to show for the rare "glam" event, but the rest of the time don't show up at all, or, if they do, are not actively trying to help.

So, it is not a litmus based on who the person is, unless you want to call self initiative a litmus.

"Purity" is the last thing anyone wants. The more heads actually working and making inputs on these projects the better the result.

Incidentally, the "litmus" I was referring to in response to the original post was to do with whether a person had gotten deep enough into union work to actually know how the process works and all the various considerations that need to go into the choices that are made. It is my contention that you need to get that involved in order to really understand the big picture. Otherwise you are more casting stones from the sidelines and making decisions with far less than full knowledge of the pro's and con's of those choices.

Gunter -

2 questions:

Do you feel those who constantly bid the next higher seat, go thru training multiple times, constantly sit reserve at 100% and then complain about their crappy reserve schedules and the trips they fly are "abused" by the company (...or anyone else for that matter)?

How does your second statement above relate to your first statement?

I highly respect your thought process and postings, but IMHO you are reaching here.

In Unity,

DLax

Agree...we are well past the point of diminishing returns....just VOTE!!

Anyone who complained the first FDA LOA was a raw deal should want to improve it.

Not everyone is a flex or LCA on passover with better seniority in seat with a higher payrate. But I'm not complaining about that or about reserve, training cycles or being at the bottom of a seat. I really don't understand what you're referring to.

Would you rather have FDA FO holders be senior or junior to you? If the package remains poor they will all be junior.

You know I think the FDA packaged should be improved --- an in many more ways than this TA improves it.

Not only do I think we are accepting to little in non-FDA benefits in this TA, I think the FDA improvements are also insufficient --- no scope verbiage, incredibly low weight allowances, restrictions on where you must live.

These are all things that should also be fixed NOW and not all of them cost the company money --- rather, it may cause the company to show their true intent.

That's OK --- I like transparency.

I have a genuine fear that if we accept this FDA package as v3.0 we, as a pilot group, are "memoralizing" many deficiencies in the FDA and clearly demonstrating that we are willing to accept them time and time again.

I wonder how any mediator would look at that.

With regards to seniority, I'd like those who go to the FDA to be senior to me --- but, I may also want to bid an FDA some day.

If/when I go, I want it to be equitable when compared with other expat and mil packages.

Now regarding those who bid a higher seat at 100%, sit reserve as a commuter and then complain about it --- you know the old adage "You only have to be junior once...after that, it's a choice".

I think that sentiment clearly applies to those who bid the FDAs as well --- especially if people are arguing: "Well you know they are going to fill the MD-11 Capt seat in HKG even without a new FDA agreement"

Those who voluntarily agree to go to an FDA under substadard terms are not helping themselves.

I have voted my NO, and now it's time for me to step away from the TA debate. Good luck and good night.

I'm voting NO!!
 

We have to be careful about setting a new precedent about negotiating our contracts. Anytime the company has some issue to deal with that is difficult to define they can put off negotiating and just extend.

The company needs FOQA/ASAP too--stop talking about it like it is some huge victory for us.

I like the FDA improvements, but those can be part of our regular negotiations. I think the company wants those FDA's squared away as much as we do. If I remember right within a couple days of our accepting their FINAL OFFER for HKG we were given improvements.

How about coming out and saying we aren't giving up anything in retirement. In fact, due to pay increases and the increased retirement age we want improvements. Raise the cap, allow more than 25 years credit, increase the B plan.

How about 4A2B? Nothing!!! Oh that's right the union officers pay was unaffected by that. We sufferred through it and the bulk of the improvements negotiated in the TA are for the Union officers--seems fair. Go ahead and vote Yes for them if you like paying to get screwed. Seems like these boys need a reminder of whom they work (that doesn't mean telecommute) for.

How come the Union failed to discuss the massive gains they get in the TA in section 19 improvements. They get more money, more time off, can go non current without any loss of pay and can telecommute. If I'm paying $500 a month in dues I want some bodies in the damn office everyday. Don't forget fedex management is there everyday, I don't think it is too much to ask of our representatives. Rule number one of how to bust a union is to fracture the union leadership from its membership. Come on our leadership is simply fleecing their own pockets at our expense. It would have been nice if they would have at least told us they were screwing us in all the emails and meetings. I am really disappointed.

When was the last time the company fast tracked a good deal for us. I'm not trying to be militant, I just want our union guys to do their jobs and stop paying themselves more and improving their work rules and to take care of their constituents. I hoped for a lot from our new union leadership, but it is obvious they are ill equipped to deal with management. I guess if this thing passes at least they will be taken care of.