Great, good idea, I'm sure the negotiating committee and all of those working on our side didn't think of it (fixing 4a2b, real time trip trading ect).
The problem is all of these things take time to negotiate require the sections that they are in to be opened and TA'd in their entirety. The LOA's that were incorporated have been done for months and in some cases almost a year.


To do what they are trying to do (which is novel and I believe smart) you just didn't have the time. A bird in hand with improvements for everyone and more to come soon (remember this is a start not a end to negotiations) in my opinion is better than 3 years of negotiating.

 

Also the idea that the negotiating would survive a rejected TA is laughable. Look back at the history of rejected TA's and most have the committee resigning (here come the throw the bums out lines ).

They would have no leg to stand on at the negotiation table and zero credibility with any mediator. Conversation would go something like this:

NEG com: We need to define entry requirements for 4a2b

Company: What do you mean, it worked great no one was furloughed, your junior guys aren't complaining.

Neg com: Yes they are, everyone is ****ed off

Company : How do you know, you couldn't even get a contract extension passed

Neg Com: but..

Mediator: He does have a point........

Nothing is accomplished except wasted time and energy.

 

They certainly had time to negotiate the company's needs.

And, your argument of needing to open sections and TA them in their entirety, makes no sense. Sec. 4, was opened and 4A2b was addressed in this TA. Just not satisfactorily.

Look, we spend our dues money on polling the membership before negotiations and even more on the road-show/voting process. If all we're expected to do is rubber-stamp everything our NC puts out for us to ratify, regardless of if it meets ANY of our goals...Why bother? Let's do away with polling, ratification and for that matter, the MEC. You're right, it is a waste of time and energy.

 

This whole thing reminds me more of the offer the company made with the postal contract. Lots of people saying "no way, we should hold out for more".

How did that work out?

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ca...tml#post204201

 

They cut and pasted a previously negotiated TA into that section. Much different from reworking a new amendment from scratch.

I don't see how this has morphed into a win just for the company.
There are no concessions in the TA and only improvements for our pilot group. Not all the ones we want and will get, but improvements non the less.

 

You keep ignoring CGN as a give back. We are giving up European SIBA, the most senior flying we have, for things the company wants. We are reducing the number of pilots required on the property. That is a give back. You either think the company wants an LOA or they dont, I think they do, you obviously think they dont. As far as your little dialogue above, try this one:

NC: Looks like we need to talk about some serious issues before we get that FDA LOA passed.

Management: What you guys cant even get a contract extension passed.

NC: We told you morons that the way you implemented 4A2b would forever change the way the pilots trusted you greedy rat turds and would prevent us from ever slipping in vague language into a contract again. Now do you want to get down to business or do you want to continue Eyropean SIBA? Call us we will be at Ruth Chris.

 

Funny that your argument hinges on protecting the flying of a very small number of super senior pilots at the expense of every pilot at the current and future FDA's (MD11 HKG is coming regardless). The opportunity afforded to those who want go live in Germany for 4.9 years in my mind outweighs the 60+ year olds padding their FF numbers with Delta. BTW it has been repeatedly stated that Airbus SIBA would continue out of Paris with the 757 in CGN.

As far as requiring less pilots to staff an FDA, you are right it would. But seeing as how we are hiring, and should be for a while (unless Glenn Beck is right and the up-down-squeeze-in-out or whatever he talks about is around the corner) thats a mute point because if this is voted down, new hires will be going to HKG and they'll know full well what their getting into.......right.

 

Besides, I thought from your previous posts that you were against being a greedy, socialist, obstructionist, AFL-CIO, Union type that is running this country into the ground.

 

Actually if you read my post you would know that I consider trade unionism the highest form of capitalism. We have one form of capital available to us that is our labor. By banding together we create a monopoly that allows to get what we deserve. Unless of course we sell our sellves for far less than we are worth.

 

No my argument hinges on wether you think the company wants an loa or not. You cant answer that question can you? I am all for giving up SIBA just not for the price you are willing to settle for; a 3% raise everyone agrees we will get eventually anyways.

And they can put all aspects of the LOA in force in HKG tomorrow if they want too. Does not require a vote.