MEMA300

I think negotiating a half way (767LOA) deal is stupid. You would not negotiate with a mortgage broker and agree on a rate when you have no idea what closing cost might be. If the company wants the 767 negotiated, then get to the effing table and wrap this whole thing up in the next month.

I think it is total BS.

RedeyeAV8r

Everyone needs to read and re-read Section 26K.

The Company can put the 767 into service immediately at a category they determine. Section 26K contractually mandates an arbitration if there is No agreement between the Company and ALPA.

Remembering recent history with the 777 Arbitration as well as the # of 767 Lanyards I see being worn, I think ALPA leadership is taking the wise path to get a deal done cementing the 767 rates now, if it indeed it puts the 767 in a Contractual WB category, which means R day and vacation days are paid at WB rates.

Would I prefer there just be a Contract delivered with No 767 LOA in the short term? Yes I would. But realistically I hope the 767 can be Solidified NOW as a WB for hourly Pay, Reserve Guarantee and Vacation. Just like the 777, there appears to be Pilots here who just can't wait to get there hands on one regardless of pay. Hopefully SS won't bid it before this is done

Gunter

Surely you remember when the 777 payrate issue was hot. The company offered an ultra long override instead and we refused. Then we took the payrate issue to arbitration and lost.

Remember that when you were on the MEC?

English, eh? I often hurriedly hit submit and move on to some other activity. Don't like to spend all day on here.

Albief15

...................

TonyC

Ah, gotcha. I think you left out the word "turned" or something like that. You're saying the MEC turned down a deal that we never got back.


Yeah, the MEC wanted a seperate pay rate for the B-777, something short of A-380, but more than "Widebody." I think it's ridiculous that the A310 pays the same as the B-777, don't you?

Anyway, the proposals discussed were based on a system of overrides which would be based on triggers that The Company could control and manipulate. The overrides were conditional, and nobody could affect the conditions except The Company. Does that sound familiar? International Grid ring a bell? Reviews were mixed.

Add to that problem the fact that the VP of Flight Ops sent us that famous New Year's Eve FCIF announcing the implementation of 4.A.2.b. -- negotiations became very difficult, and the ratification environment (which would have been required for an LOA) became quite hostile.

As for the 26.K. arbitration for the B-777 pay rate, the biggest problem we faced was the mess left behind by FPA's attempt to label the MD-10 as something other than a Widebody. It started out as a DC-10, which was a Widebody, and they made it "like" an MD-11, which is a widebody, and yet some genius spent our dues money arguing that it wasn't a widebody. The arguments they used then proved to be an impediment to our case to argue that the B-777 was something more than a widebody.

So, to answer your question about how I feel ... I feel fine about what we did.






.

4A2B

The big motza ball in the room was the fact that the WB/NB pay structure existed and we had operated the B747 as a WB and the B777 was below that GW not the fact that we stupidly attempted to get more money for the MD10 than the MD11, that was just another poor decision wasting Union funds.

The big picture is ALPA's lack of SA, and I am very happy that you are fine with your actions as an MEC rep as it is better (easier) to have fought the good fight than conduct a true risk analysis and lead, no matter if the right course is less than you think we deserve. It is about what you can actually negotiate and how current language helps or hurts us. right? Nah that's crazy talk.

Gunter

Yeah, left out the word turned.

Thanks for the thoughts. We should think about that debacle as we may be have, yet again, an airplane bid before a pay rate has been agreed upon. Or at least before the work rules are ironed out.



Albie,

Sorry if my quick comment offended. I know some felt a higher pay rate was going to be an easy arbitration. Hindsight is 20/20 while its foggy in the heat of battle. Since we flew 747's under the widebody payrate the arbitrator disagreed.

Maybe arbitration will fruitful this time working out work rules, not sure.

TonyC

That's a bit ironic, as I recall there was some question as to who should have been leading ... the MEC or their committee.

Hindsight is 20/20. Had we endorsed the override scheme and the membership ratified the LOA, we might have some people making more money today through overrides. They'd all be senior, and many of them over 60, so we'd have something else to complain about. (Lest there be any doubt to the casual observer, the last sentence was sarcasm.)



Here's 26.K.:

K. New Aircraft In Service

1. If the Company wishes to place into operation any aircraft above the MTOGW limits outlined in Section 1, other than the aircraft for which rates of pay are established in Section 3 of this Agreement, the following shall apply:

a. The Company or the Association may, by written request, initiate conferences to negotiate agreements governing whether that equipment shall be considered a wide-body, narrow-body, or some new category of aircraft for the purposes of pay. Conferences shall commence no later than 30 days following receipt of the written request for those conferences.

b. If no agreement has been reached within 30 days following commencement of conferences, a non-disciplinary panel of the System Board shall be convened as provided in Section 21 for the purpose of establishing whether that equipment shall be considered a wide-body, narrow-body, or some new category of aircraft for the purposes of pay, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 21.A.4. (Jurisdiction of System Board).

c. The decision of the System Board shall be incorporated into this Agreement by reference. If the Company has placed the aircraft in service at a designated rate of pay before the System Board issues its decision, then the rates of pay determined by the System Board shall be applied retroactively.

d. The provisions of Section 31 of this Agreement shall not prevent the operation of Section 26.K.

2. If the Company introduces B737 and/or B757 aircraft, those aircraft will be considered narrow body aircraft.


3. A-380 pay rates are as provided in Section 3.

Pay Rates -- only Pay Rates. No other aspect of bringing the new aircraft into service can be arbitrated through 26.K. Only Pay Rates. And rates of pay.

No work rules. No bid period package construction. No training programs. No instructor cadre. No bidding restrictions.

Only pay rates.






.

MEMbrain

At least we got A380 pay rates in exchange for 757 pay on the narrowbody scale.

Top UPS 757 Capt/FO pay is $262/186. Our top 757 pay is $225/163. This is UNACCEPTABLE!

OKLATEX

They can have their pay, I'll keep our work rules, thanks anyway though!