View Poll Results: Thoughts on the TA
Works for me - Yes
78
24.61%
not a fan - no
189
59.62%
not sure yet
50
15.77%
Voters: 317. You may not vote on this poll
TA poll (FedEx)
02-23-2011 | 01:00 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Likes: 0
You've seen it too. I'm not going to address or even hope to see everything. Some posts I've seen have merely been differences of opinion. Others have been factually wrong. Some others are in need of factual information so are supposition. Those frustrate me because some are running passionately with the supposition they heard before gathering the information needed to form an intelligent opinion.
Do you think the NC update is misinformation? The parts I may disagree with are matters of opinion. I agree with the facts as "they" (they=JG, MW, RI) are presenting them.
There are some carefully crafted arguments showing up on APC that are meant to push a certain agenda. Beware.
Last edited by Gunter; 02-23-2011 at 02:45 PM.
02-23-2011 | 02:41 PM
#42
Down, 3 Green
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
From: MEM A300
Sign me up.
I respectfully disagree. I am fully willing to accept and support the current MEC's approach to a "Hybrid" TA. I think it makes a lot of sense with the limbo of new FTDT coming this fall. Won't I do not agree with is more loosely worded contract language that is vague and has multiple interpretations. TIME TO TIE UP ALL THE LOOPHOLES NOW. When has the company EVER acted in "good faith" later? Uhhhh, NEVER!
I seek NO retribution for 4.A.2.b. We voted on the previous CBA with it in there, we grieved it and lost. So be it, the process is the process and the company won, end of story. I have no doubt that the company was justified initially in entering 4.A.2.b, and proud to say that nobody was furloughed, but also have no doubt we remained in 4.A.2.b for a good 6-9 months longer than necessary.
I am not sure what "TIMELINE" the union is trying to meet but unless the TA is properly written and worded it our duty to vote NO and send it back. We can not change the past but only learn from our mistakes. I have forgiven but certainly NOT forgotten.
I seek NO retribution for 4.A.2.b. We voted on the previous CBA with it in there, we grieved it and lost. So be it, the process is the process and the company won, end of story. I have no doubt that the company was justified initially in entering 4.A.2.b, and proud to say that nobody was furloughed, but also have no doubt we remained in 4.A.2.b for a good 6-9 months longer than necessary.
I am not sure what "TIMELINE" the union is trying to meet but unless the TA is properly written and worded it our duty to vote NO and send it back. We can not change the past but only learn from our mistakes. I have forgiven but certainly NOT forgotten.
02-23-2011 | 04:54 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,047
Likes: 0
From: 767 FO
You've seen it too. I'm not going to address or even hope to see everything. Some posts I've seen have merely been differences of opinion. Others have been factually wrong. Some others are in need of factual information so are supposition. Those frustrate me because some are running passionately with the supposition they heard before gathering the information needed to form an intelligent opinion.
Do you think the NC update is misinformation? The parts I may disagree with are matters of opinion. I agree with the facts as "they" (they=JG, MW, RI) are presenting them.
There are some carefully crafted arguments showing up on APC that are meant to push a certain agenda. Beware.
Do you think the NC update is misinformation? The parts I may disagree with are matters of opinion. I agree with the facts as "they" (they=JG, MW, RI) are presenting them.
There are some carefully crafted arguments showing up on APC that are meant to push a certain agenda. Beware.
I think the NC updates are partial information. I think the video today was useless claptrap. Want to put out a video give me 15 minutes of why waiting four months before we give up the only leverage we are likely to have is a bad idea.
Here is my example. One cryptic message in the 1st video says STVs can not be inversed. How hard would or should it to back that up officially. Havent heard anything else since. No one knows what part of the CBA will be used to assign STVs. Maybe they will award them alphabetically.
The Email link to the NC doesnt work at least for me.
02-25-2011 | 09:07 AM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
From: B777 Captain
Just like we did to the offer the company made on the Postal flying. Folks all over these boards thumping their chests about all the "leverage" we had. In truth, we had a LOT more leverage with that than we do with the FDA deal. So, that LOA was killed. Worked out great for us, didn't it? 
02-25-2011 | 09:41 AM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,184
Likes: 0
From: leaning to the left
Just like we did to the offer the company made on the Postal flying. Folks all over these boards thumping their chests about all the "leverage" we had. In truth, we had a LOT more leverage with that than we do with the FDA deal. So, that LOA was killed. Worked out great for us, didn't it?
The way I remember it, the NC told the company they wouldn't be able to do the postal contract under the current CBA, without the pilot's help. And, they were right. Problem was, the short-sighted, grab the quick buck, attitude of the pilot group played right into the company's hand. Sound familiar?
If the pilot's wouldn't have lined up at the trough for the Voluntary Vac. cancellations, volunteer and draft trips...The company would not have been able to do it. We had enormous leverage, and this pilot group wasted it.
I'm curious though. You say, "we had a LOT more leverage with that deal". So, how would you have voted on that TA, if it had been presented?
02-26-2011 | 09:57 AM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
The way I remember it, the NC told the company they wouldn't be able to do the postal contract under the current CBA, without the pilot's help. And, they were right. Problem was, the short-sighted, grab the quick buck, attitude of the pilot group played right into the company's hand. Sound familiar?
Unfortunately we have in the past and continue to give no real leverage to our side. Reminder, this is the same pilot group that let 4a2b work, we had all the tools we needed to end that game all on our own.
It takes, PERSONAL, intestinal fortitude to make that work. Someday enough of our ranks will figure that out. Pressure or leverage is not some road block on cost efficiencies (FDA), it is us. This deal, like the postal deal, will be a blip on the radar for our Company, they will not blink an eye. Unless ,of course ,real leverage shows up some day down the road.
Still hoping.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
