![]() |
Originally Posted by NJGov
(Post 3985149)
I don’t understand where some of you keep standing behind the company’s “promise” to implement QS?
im pretty near certain they won’t come before a TA because they know how much it divides us as a group but can anyone of you “PRO” MOU people can show me where the company completely, swiftly, or correctly fulfilled a promise in this decade I’ll eat crow and start supporting it myself That said, I agree with the rest of what you wrote. That’s exactly why 25-05 needed to be exposed to member input and MEMRAT prior to signing. It contains no teeth whatsoever. Some of the sharpest minds on the MEC, such as SK, were against 25-05 due to poor construction. |
Originally Posted by GutterGuard
(Post 3985152)
Management's greatest piece of leverage comes from reading APC
If the company can find a way to magnify the internet guys they can certainly make it seem like its a lot of us. However they can fool themselves too. pilots are kinda control freak type A weirdos that feel like their own hands are safest. The union needs to get more personal communication, listen, and earn trust. Believe me, if every pilot talked alike and refused to talk to management about negotiations this thing would be quick. That isnt realistic. Keep answering polls, call your reps, listen to what they say, and if we got bad ones vote them out. |
Originally Posted by NJGov
(Post 3985149)
but can anyone of you “PRO” MOU people can show me where the company completely, swiftly, or correctly fulfilled a promise in this decade I’ll eat crow and start supporting it myself
|
Originally Posted by ancman
(Post 3985116)
That merely provides further context that you have no idea how negotiations work in this industry.
That's some 4-D chess the company is playing. |
Originally Posted by SideStickMonkey
(Post 3985243)
Right. We didn't force the company to pay 3x to cover trips (or 4x if/when QS are implemented), they choose that path.
That's some 4-D chess the company is playing. |
Originally Posted by ancman
(Post 3985257)
They brought it on themselves with ARCOS and willingly agreed to the contractual language that caused their problems. Their attack on batch sizes was the nail in the coffin for them.
Right |
Originally Posted by ancman
(Post 3985257)
They brought it on themselves with ARCOS and willingly agreed to the contractual language that caused their problems. Their attack on batch sizes was the nail in the coffin for them.
|
Originally Posted by Xray678
(Post 3985262)
the attack on batch sizes sped it up ….but people would have starting over using auto accept regardless.
|
Originally Posted by SideStickMonkey
(Post 3985261)
Yeah so the company made a bunch of willing errors to give the pilot group leverage going into Section 6.
Right Errors? Absolutely. |
Originally Posted by SideStickMonkey
(Post 3985243)
Right. We didn't force the company to pay 3x to cover trips (or 4x if/when QS are implemented), they choose that path.
That's some 4-D chess the company is playing. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:09 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands