|
Originally Posted by CX500T
(Post 3975653)
Y'all keep forgetting the sick lookback gone UFN.
As much as DL likes to throttle sick usage, this pretty much means any sick call doesn't count, even if you get GFBd. I was going to be on the 120+ lookback until at least next November. Now? I don't need a QHCP to sign off, unless they GFB me, in which case, it gets very spendy very quick. Also, WHO can sign a QHCP form is forever changed to be more flexible. No longer has to be MD or DO. Can be DC, NP, PA and probably some others I'm forgetting. Again, totally anecdotal. (yes, GS, not IA) |
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 3975652)
My part of "we" is still considering options until we have an understanding of how much payroll we are discussing. We have a problem with seniority assignments, still.
|
Originally Posted by Abouttime2fish
(Post 3975661)
Auto accept is not the problem, it’s just what the company wants you to think the problem is. The problem is 100% crew schedules and their inability to cover trips in a timely manner. Was not a problem pre-Covid. Kind of like my weak ass FAs that just refused to do service while I had seat belt sign off.
Auto accept is the problem. CS is now using loopholes to get around the problem. They need to fill the trips somehow. |
Originally Posted by Abouttime2fish
(Post 3975661)
Auto accept is not the problem, it’s just what the company wants you to think the problem is. The problem is 100% crew schedules and their inability to cover trips in a timely manner. Was not a problem pre-Covid. Kind of like my weak ass FAs that just refused to do service while I had seat belt sign off.
|
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 3975606)
And how have we solved the "problem?" I'm still waiting for a solution. The reps that must field 17000+ phone calls to provide each of us with information apparently. Those reps? 17 of them so 17000 x 17 different answers is a great way to inform the constituents, right?
You know that's not how our union representation works. Enough pilots reached out to their reps before this MOU happened. You apparently were not one of them. It didn't happen out of thin air. |
Originally Posted by OOfff
(Post 3975668)
it means clarification and agreement about what the rules are.
what, that the company was doing illegally before is now compliant with the mou? That sounds like rewriting to make them compliant. So was the original codification not adequate? Was that original negotiation for naught? |
Originally Posted by Meme In Command
(Post 3975582)
Nah, this is an easy solution for them. Renegotiate trip coverage during negotiations. Drag it out and let inflation recapture that cost. Then, we get paid "never actually full retro" retro.
Like Oofff said ... the company doesn't care which pilot gets paid -- we do. A5S |
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 3975680)
for some reason we had to re-codify? because the company wasn't in compliance?
That sounds like rewriting to make them compliant. So was the original codification not adequate? Was that original negotiation for naught? |
Originally Posted by OOfff
(Post 3975670)
so, you just hope that we will figure out some leverage someday? you can’t describe what we should have gotten or how, but it must have been better?
|
Is anyone asking where all this open time is coming from?
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:21 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands