FDX TA-An opposing view
02-24-2011 | 04:00 PM
#91
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,717
Likes: 0
From: Retired
And by the way, to all the folks stating that the MEC has all the info and they approved of this TA 10-2. That's not entirely true. From my block rep's Email: My reason for voting to pass this on to the membership came simply down to the fact that you pay thousands of dollars in dues for the right to vote on these matters and my rejecting it would deprive you of that right. My decision was based on whether it is worthy of your consideration. I believe it is. That being said, I do not plan to recommend either way how you should vote.
Your block rep is taking the easy way out! I say that because he was hired to work, on the inside, on your behalf, and as such, he should have an opinion, based on his expanded knowledge of the situation in question, and he should share that opinion with the folks who elected him, and make a recommendation to them, not pass the buck.
19 years ago, I went into the hospital to have a lymphangiogram done to see if I had cancer below my diaphragm. The procedure took 7 hours and it was somewhat painful. After the procedure, the radiologist took X-rays and interpreted them. However, he wouldn't commit to an answer. So after all that work on his part, and pain and mental anguish on my part, I didn't know anything more than I did before undergoing the procedure. I was ticked beyond belief, and finally left the hospital, after telling the folks in billing that I had no intention of paying their bill, because I felt that no service had been rendered. I would again talk to your block rep and get his feelings on the TA.
JJ
02-24-2011 | 04:12 PM
#92
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,047
Likes: 0
From: 767 FO
FDXLAG,
You always think I'm talking about you when I make observations and give warnings. Not so. Sorry you took offense. We all have agendas. I don't think mine is hidden but that is for you to decide. No one should read a post here without considering what the writer is trying to accomplish. That is difficult at best without voice inflection and body language which is why the union encourages personal forms of comm with members.
The NC is getting a boat load of e-mails and phone calls. They're being asked to share their views and that's what they're trying to do. Some of our pilots refuse to put any effort in contacting anyone in the union and only check e-mail for the "news". If they were unavailable for comment many would be very unhappy.
If you (any individual) feel that is a hard sell because you aren't asking all those questions all I can say is you aren't the only one they're addressing. It's kinda like a speaker addressing a crowd. It's much easier being part of the crowd than the one trying to answer to it.
You always think I'm talking about you when I make observations and give warnings. Not so. Sorry you took offense. We all have agendas. I don't think mine is hidden but that is for you to decide. No one should read a post here without considering what the writer is trying to accomplish. That is difficult at best without voice inflection and body language which is why the union encourages personal forms of comm with members.
The NC is getting a boat load of e-mails and phone calls. They're being asked to share their views and that's what they're trying to do. Some of our pilots refuse to put any effort in contacting anyone in the union and only check e-mail for the "news". If they were unavailable for comment many would be very unhappy.
If you (any individual) feel that is a hard sell because you aren't asking all those questions all I can say is you aren't the only one they're addressing. It's kinda like a speaker addressing a crowd. It's much easier being part of the crowd than the one trying to answer to it.
I did not feel you were addressing me, I did find your earlier post about motives and agendas amusing. We all have motives and agendas. Here is my E Mail I keep sending to the following address that keeps getting rejected. They really are the only questions I have, maybe you can relay them:
Gentlemen,
1. What section of the TA would be used to assign STVs after this TA is passed? How would the minor details like deconflicting training and an STV be handled for example?
2. How much would RLG in the 727 and the Bus have changed if the TA's 4A2b language would have been in force? Please pick any random 3 months to use as a comparison.
Thank You
This is the mail address that keeps getting rejected do you have a better one:
[email protected]
02-24-2011 | 04:31 PM
#93
Line Holder
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Fdxlag,
Yes, I understand that you think the TA sucks, and I understand your other stated misgivings as well. However, you didn't answer my original question to you, which was "Are you suggesting that because the NPRM rules are due out then, that we should turn down the TA and in 4 months, we'll have either another TA to look at, or a full contract?"
On another note, after reading your above post, it seems to me that you would be a "No" voter, regardless of what was presented in the TA, unless said TA had all the work rules included, otherwise you're not willing to even consider a "Yes" vote. Am I correct?
As well, IF the TA had all the work rules incorporated, would you then demand that all the other "issues", like deadhead bank, per diem, ground transport, reserve leveling, first year pay, etc, etc, be included? I ask this simple question, because it your answer is "Yes", then what you're really asking for is a completed contract, with all sections addressed and modified as needed. If that's the case, then I hope you're a patient fellow, because it's going to be a while.
JJ
Yes, I understand that you think the TA sucks, and I understand your other stated misgivings as well. However, you didn't answer my original question to you, which was "Are you suggesting that because the NPRM rules are due out then, that we should turn down the TA and in 4 months, we'll have either another TA to look at, or a full contract?"
On another note, after reading your above post, it seems to me that you would be a "No" voter, regardless of what was presented in the TA, unless said TA had all the work rules included, otherwise you're not willing to even consider a "Yes" vote. Am I correct?
As well, IF the TA had all the work rules incorporated, would you then demand that all the other "issues", like deadhead bank, per diem, ground transport, reserve leveling, first year pay, etc, etc, be included? I ask this simple question, because it your answer is "Yes", then what you're really asking for is a completed contract, with all sections addressed and modified as needed. If that's the case, then I hope you're a patient fellow, because it's going to be a while.
JJ
What people are perceiving as a "hard sell" by the MEC is their attempt to explain that this is a bridge contract vs a traditional sec 6. This is being attempted because of the work rule changes coming that both side agree would make further negotiations unfruitful and perhaps counterproductive until they are finalized and analyzed.
If you can wrap your head around that and the intent of what they are trying, it makes a lot of sense.
Beating a dead horse on this, but the message does not seem to be getting through to some.
02-24-2011 | 04:32 PM
#94
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,395
Likes: 0
From: B-777 Captain
02-24-2011 | 04:46 PM
#95
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,184
Likes: 0
From: leaning to the left
Good post JJ.
What people are perceiving as a "hard sell" by the MEC is their attempt to explain that this is a bridge contract vs a traditional sec 6. This is being attempted because of the work rule changes coming that both side agree would make further negotiations unfruitful and perhaps counterproductive until they are finalized and analyzed.
If you can wrap your head around that and the intent of what they are trying, it makes a lot of sense.
Beating a dead horse on this, but the message does not seem to be getting through to some.
What people are perceiving as a "hard sell" by the MEC is their attempt to explain that this is a bridge contract vs a traditional sec 6. This is being attempted because of the work rule changes coming that both side agree would make further negotiations unfruitful and perhaps counterproductive until they are finalized and analyzed.
If you can wrap your head around that and the intent of what they are trying, it makes a lot of sense.
Beating a dead horse on this, but the message does not seem to be getting through to some.
Last edited by Busboy; 02-25-2011 at 02:01 AM. Reason: brevity
02-24-2011 | 06:27 PM
#97
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,047
Likes: 0
From: 767 FO
Try this one [email protected]
02-24-2011 | 08:35 PM
#98
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,203
Likes: 0
From: Gear Monkey
.....We do not need to go that route. I appreciate the current MEC, and the NC. I think overall they are doing a good job, and I greatly appreciate the improvements in communication. But I do not support this TA. I think if it is voted down, this same NC can go back after new rest rules are out and get a TA v2.0 that we can (hopefully) all support. I'll be happy to wait for that 3% and the safety programs.
Well said! +1
Think of your high school English teacher: Draft, Edit, Revise.
Be glad to look at v2.0
Last edited by DLax85; 02-24-2011 at 08:52 PM.
02-24-2011 | 08:54 PM
#99
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,203
Likes: 0
From: Gear Monkey
Good post JJ.
What people are perceiving as a "hard sell" by the MEC is their attempt to explain that this is a bridge contract vs a traditional sec 6. This is being attempted because of the work rule changes coming that both side agree would make further negotiations unfruitful and perhaps counterproductive until they are finalized and analyzed.
If you can wrap your head around that and the intent of what they are trying, it makes a lot of sense.
Beating a dead horse on this, but the message does not seem to be getting through to some.
What people are perceiving as a "hard sell" by the MEC is their attempt to explain that this is a bridge contract vs a traditional sec 6. This is being attempted because of the work rule changes coming that both side agree would make further negotiations unfruitful and perhaps counterproductive until they are finalized and analyzed.
If you can wrap your head around that and the intent of what they are trying, it makes a lot of sense.
Beating a dead horse on this, but the message does not seem to be getting through to some.
They've been listed at nauseum --- and may even make a dead horse throw up.
This message does not seem to be getting through to some.
Last edited by DLax85; 02-24-2011 at 09:07 PM.
02-24-2011 | 09:17 PM
#100
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,203
Likes: 0
From: Gear Monkey
Why?
Because back in 2007 when many were upset with the inadequacies of FDA LOA v1.0 a long list of improvements were proposed by many people on this board.
And what transpired?
Many of those improvements were either given by the company right away (...additional weight allowances, housing depost $$, a promise not to use STVs, etc) and others were incorporated into FDA LOA v2.0.
...and now, even more FDA improvements (some very significant) have surfaced in this TA-bridge offer.
It's clearly evident the company could afford to increase housing allowances, provide some educational benefits, etc. (...more $$ is areas we were initially told is "that's the best they can do")
Now, many folks are suggesting for improvements to this TA bridge that have nothing to do with the FAA NPRM.
Accepted fares, training pay, etc...etc.
Once again --- its OK to communicate to the NC that we support them, but in this case they need to go back in and ask for a few more items on "our" list before we agree to the new FDA language.
This need not drag on for months and months or years and years ---- we are talking about the issues NOT associated with the FAA NPRM.
Perhaps that's what all this new Wilson polling is really about.
Discuss.
Last edited by DLax85; 02-24-2011 at 09:39 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
