|
Looks like ALPA has the vol measures TA posted
|
Originally Posted by Gone Flying
(Post 3133836)
that LOA gave them the option to offer SILs, it did not require that they do so. A no furlough clause would not give them the option not to furlough, it would say they CANNOT furlough.
You are right they could still furlough non cons but the lead time required with WARN notices would suggest they have no plans to do so in the immediate future. |
Originally Posted by Forgotmyhat
(Post 3133883)
They MEC and NC absolutely folded at the first sign of turbulence after a year of being made to look like fools.
Disagree with you here. The union represents us only by actively negotiating on our behalf. That deal in March appears reasonable to me and I’m glad they did it. Our representatives have been engaged while steadfastly representing our interests ever since. Not perfect, but they’ve done what I pay them for and I appreciate it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by Forgotmyhat
(Post 3133883)
To me, the first appalling moment in this mess was not the reneging on the SILs (although that was the catalyst in unifying the pilots), but the fact that the union so easily folded when the company first asked for help.
The company had stonewalled us for nearly a year during section 6 negotiations, asking for arbitration early because they didn’t want to play with us anymore. They were literally (okay...figuratively) spitting in our faces the whole time. And then they come begging to rebid the April schedule and the MEC says “sure go ahead”. What we got in return is irrelevant. They MEC and NC absolutely folded at the first sign of turbulence after a year of being made to look like fools. My jaw dropped when they announced that deal. And this was before the company reneged on the SILs! We have the high ground. We've been in the right all along, and I'm proud of my reps. The company stonewall before COVID19 was to be expected, and they have shown their true true colors. Management has mostly galvanized this group and in the end I think that is to our advantage. What I lost in the April rebid was partially offset by our contractual gains, and partially offset by our current negotiating position (that I actually think is pretty strong, all things considered). We also have good standing should we find ourselves in front of a BK judge or arbitrator. Of all the places we could be amidst a global pandemic, I think DALPA has us appropriately positioned. |
Originally Posted by schwifty
(Post 3133885)
Looks like ALPA has the vol measures TA posted
Blank Lines that pay a minimum of 25 hours per month. Ultra Long Call Reserve (24 hour call out and no SCs) - Pays 80% of Reserve guarantee. Continuous Blank Line (12 months in a row) - Minimum pay as 35 hours per month. RLLs - not sure what is different than we already have. Possibly some changes to the trip coverage steps - I didn't have time to go through and compare the new coverage sequence with our current PWA. To me the most interesting part is the ULC Reserve - probably tempting for commuters. Also looks like some very "squishy" wording. The company "may" do this and "may not" so after the whole SIL fiasco put me down as skeptical. Scoop |
Originally Posted by TED74
(Post 3133897)
I can understand your frustration. Personally, I didn't see it as folding; I saw it as negotiating in good faith in the face of an economic catastrophe our industry hadn't seen before.
We have the high ground. We've been in the right all along, and I'm proud of my reps. The company stonewall before COVID19 was to be expected, and they have shown their true true colors. Management has mostly galvanized this group and in the end I think that is to our advantage. What I lost in the April rebid was partially offset by our contractual gains, and partially offset by our current negotiating position (that I actually think is pretty strong, all things considered). We also have good standing should we find ourselves in front of a BK judge or arbitrator. Of all the places we could be amidst a global pandemic, I think DALPA has us appropriately positioned. |
Originally Posted by Forgotmyhat
(Post 3133902)
Respectfully, if this is our collective mindset while negotiating...we’re in trouble.
|
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 3133901)
At a quick glance:
Blank Lines that pay a minimum of 25 hours per month. Ultra Long Call Reserve (24 hour call out and no SCs) - Pays 80% of Reserve guarantee. Continuous Blank Line (12 months in a row) - Minimum pay as 35 hours per month. RLLs - not sure what is different than we already have. Possibly some changes to the trip coverage steps - I didn't have time to go through and compare the new coverage sequence with our current PWA. To me the most interesting part is the ULC Reserve - probably tempting for commuters. Also looks like some very "squishy" wording. The company "may" do this and "may not" so after the whole SIL fiasco put me down as skeptical. Scoop Overall I think this TA is great. Good job ALPA. |
They told us to pound sand for a year...
|
So I did an admittedly quick of read LOA 20-3 from the DALPA site....if I read that correctly, if we pass it, we only save 220 pilots, theres no language to mitigate all furloughs?
Gotta go watch the kiddo again. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:25 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands