ATI lowered the bar again....Fog a mirror!
05-12-2016, 11:20 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2012
Position: B-757/767 Left Right Left, aww, who can keep up...
Posts: 243
Originally Posted by Maingear
100% certain it was. It might have changed for future interviews, but as of yesterday they were still doing it.
05-12-2016, 11:39 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2012
Position: B-757/767 Left Right Left, aww, who can keep up...
Posts: 243
Originally Posted by Whale Driver
Maybe I missed something here. Why would the MEC allow ATI to pay 2nd year pay to a new hire without signing a new complete CBA?
The rest will come.
05-12-2016, 12:11 PM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2016
Posts: 430
There were no changes to section 19a pay rates post merger. The fact it was omitted was a human error. If it were ever challenged I'm sure the ruling would have reverted to the pre merger document.
The company had the choice of offering the pre merger rate or higher. They chose 2nd year to attract pilots. Then it's blended to be on payscale by year three. The above is according to JV in person. The question was put forth in recurrent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The company had the choice of offering the pre merger rate or higher. They chose 2nd year to attract pilots. Then it's blended to be on payscale by year three. The above is according to JV in person. The question was put forth in recurrent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
05-12-2016, 12:19 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2016
Posts: 430
Originally Posted by Whale Driver
Maybe I missed something here. Why would the MEC allow ATI to pay 2nd year pay to a new hire without signing a new complete CBA?
No better yet, why not bump up year 5 and below. That way the guys that were put in the street get a little something as they return.
More to your question, I tried looking up rulings on the above. I found one involving the UAW where GM paid more to a certain plant. The cba was ruled as a minimum and the company could indeed pay more. (1986)
05-12-2016, 12:25 PM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 854
Originally Posted by b707guy
I thought the old actual DC-9 sim in ILN was dismantled or at least removed a while back.
The old Level-B sim was in the first sim bay (closest to 22R/4L). That one has been dismantled. Very much like the DC8 sim in CVG.
In the early 2000s ABX built a brand new DC9 sim that is in the last sim bay (closest to the parking lot). Very nice sim. Visuals are much better than those on the 767 sim. Since ABX parked the DC9s, January 2009, they've used this sim to provide training to outside DC9 operators.
05-12-2016, 12:55 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 548
Originally Posted by b707guy
A new CBA takes time. And it's in the works. But an opportunity lost? Perhaps, through a time-consuming LoA. The MEC had an immediate problem (addressing something not addressed by the CBA as ratified and published), and fixed it.
The rest will come.
The rest will come.
05-12-2016, 12:57 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2016
Posts: 430
Originally Posted by b707guy
Sounds like you have this locked down, CTR. So you're going to run for MEC Chairman on the next cycle?
Maybe I could deal under the table or fly on buy back days or something...because that's the only way I could put more on my plate right now. Then I could quit one of my other two jobs.
05-12-2016, 02:49 PM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2012
Position: B-757/767 Left Right Left, aww, who can keep up...
Posts: 243
Originally Posted by Whale Driver
I guess my point is, why not hold the company hostage for a new, complete CBA or the company gets no new hire pilots it needs. IMHO, it's all about leverage. I realize I am an outsider, just trying to see the whole picture.
Originally Posted by CTRCommander
Maybe I could deal under the table or fly on buy back days or something...because that's the only way I could put more on my plate right now. Then I could quit one of my other two jobs.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
