FDX - B-767 - LOA or ELSE!
03-15-2013, 06:53 AM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
Originally Posted by HKFlyr
We are in Section 6 negotiations under the RLA.
The company has to follow the contract with regards to bringing new aircraft on the property. And we have a process if we disagree. This isn't gloom and doom if we don't roll over with a quickly agreed upon LOA. (Like buying something, if you have to do it immediately or the deal is off, I'm suspect - and that is when I walk off the lot)
Giving them an LOA that isn't part of a CBA - our whole CBA - is again giving them a pass.
Just say no. Lets actually show some unity for a change with a no vote.
It would be even better if no one bid it, or (gasp) ALPA actually said "don't bid it". But some might take that as being confrontational. (and we wouldn't want to be confrontational)
Who ever said no half deals is right. NO NOPE NADA BUBKIS ZIP.
The company has to follow the contract with regards to bringing new aircraft on the property. And we have a process if we disagree. This isn't gloom and doom if we don't roll over with a quickly agreed upon LOA. (Like buying something, if you have to do it immediately or the deal is off, I'm suspect - and that is when I walk off the lot)
Giving them an LOA that isn't part of a CBA - our whole CBA - is again giving them a pass.
Just say no. Lets actually show some unity for a change with a no vote.
It would be even better if no one bid it, or (gasp) ALPA actually said "don't bid it". But some might take that as being confrontational. (and we wouldn't want to be confrontational)
Who ever said no half deals is right. NO NOPE NADA BUBKIS ZIP.
How did that arbitration Work out in our favor?
If you recall we were in Negotiations then too ( 4a2b) just not Section 6
I have no idea what is in this LOA or what it says.
If, it solidifies the 767 as a WB aircraft and allows for a seniority based
system, it is worth at least considering.
If you really think there is "Leverage" here, what do you think would happen if the Company posted a 767 Bid tomorrow and said it was a NB?(as they can contractually do).
Reference all the 767 lanyards being worn. Reference all the WB Pilots who downbid to the 757 on the last 2 small bids.
As a history buff, I recall many 777 lanyards being worn too a few years back......hey it is just another WB.
You can certainly decide now to Vote NO. That is your right.
Me, I will at least read what is sent out and make an informed decision then.
03-15-2013, 07:24 AM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
If we give the company everything it wants with a bunch of LOAs it then becomes less important to them to negotiate what we want in the CBA.
While it's important to review the 777 issue we had, 767 negotiations are a totally different animal. The basic pay rate was a prime concern then. This time it's about everything but the basic pay rate.
Last edited by Gunter; 03-15-2013 at 07:34 AM.
03-15-2013, 10:30 AM
#44
On Reserve
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: md11 fo
Posts: 18
I think considering this as an LOA vs part of a greater CBA is outstanding. It essentially affords us the opportunity to consider it as a stand alone issue rather than lumped in with a larger "take-it-or-leave-it" CBA. If we could, I'd prefer to vote each sub-section of the contract individually. This is one of those chances.
03-15-2013, 11:41 AM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 4,304
fantmdave,
I have mixed feeling on this one. I could argue that 'if' it's a good deal (our MEC must think so?) that we should take it before it gets negotiated into a deal that isn't as good - or - I could argue that if the company wants this bad enough to offer a good deal that maybe we could (should?) use that (leverage?) to help expedite a COMPLETE TA in a timely manner
It would be nice to get a TA in a timely manner instead of 2-3 years from now ...
I have mixed feeling on this one. I could argue that 'if' it's a good deal (our MEC must think so?) that we should take it before it gets negotiated into a deal that isn't as good - or - I could argue that if the company wants this bad enough to offer a good deal that maybe we could (should?) use that (leverage?) to help expedite a COMPLETE TA in a timely manner
It would be nice to get a TA in a timely manner instead of 2-3 years from now ...
Last edited by MaydayMark; 03-15-2013 at 12:09 PM.
03-15-2013, 01:07 PM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 556
Originally Posted by cgflier
So if I'm reading this right, the company gets to keep reserves at narrow body pay unless they use them for a 767 flight. How is this a good deal for us?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
