![]() |
|
Originally Posted by index
(Post 1644307)
And we'll never know how much leverage we gave away by not filing a grievance on January 1st. But then again MD would've then not been allowed to hang out with RA at the Red Sox game.
If the company would not have been negotiating in good faith etc, I would agree with you, but there was risk for both sides in the grievance process. SD's letter was way off base, but there is quite a bit of contradictory language wrt reserve and obligations. Certainly if it appeared things were not going our way, we would not have had any leverage at that point. The threat of a grievance and the implications that go with that action, may have carried more weight than filling Jan 1. I have my doubts that I am going to like this TA, but I have no problem trying to negotiate a solution first. You feel differently and that is fine as well. |
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1644175)
The communique should be out in the next day or so. No one can legally give any specifics until that is vetted. It is far from cost neutral in our favor, though.
It could be inferred from your statement that you have such information. Otherwise, why would you make such a statement? If you are a rep, it would be inappropriate prior to the release of the agreement to be making statements regarding the content of the agreement. If you are not a rep, why would you have this information and why are you talking about it? I attended one of the PUB events a few months ago. The reps I talked to said that the time for giving back to the Company was over. I would like to believe their statements. But then, what do I know? I'm just a line swine. |
Originally Posted by RockyBoy
(Post 1644183)
They are great if you get one on a GS though. Did an 8:45 day last month on a GS. I like those. :)
Originally Posted by Alan Shore
(Post 1644261)
I can imagine. But please tell us you slowed the operation down to the point necessary to stay properly fed throughout the day.
On a greenslip, or after and before a long layover, or for the efficiency seeking pilot; these 8+ hr flying (Domestic) can be enticing. I, for one, think they are very draining and could be a potential issue in the future. TEN |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1644108)
Kind of hard to file a grievance on 1 May when the company has all ready agreed to pay the pilots effected and you have a agreement in principle and are working on final language.
|
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1644175)
The communique should be out in the next day or so. No one can legally give any specifics until that is vetted. It is far from cost neutral in our favor, though.
So it's okay for you to leak characterizations but no specifics? Without details your "info" is mere propaganda. Are you a rep? Where are you getting your info from? |
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 1644042)
new-
Its just a green slip. There's no such thing as a green slip with conflict for a reserve. In fact I wish that a reserve GS had a different coding in the daily trip coverage than a regular line holding GS. They really are two different animals. |
I'm a gut with two PD's due to acknowledging trips contractually and not SD ually. My rep today told me the loa is a plus for us. He gave no specifics. I trust him and hope they are right.
|
Originally Posted by index
(Post 1644052)
Your conclusory opinion is not grounded in the law or fact. You can speculate what a court might do but to say definitively what they would do is naive and irresponsible.
Originally Posted by index
(Post 1644279)
Reading comprehension doesn't appear to be one of your strengths. I didn't say they couldn't file in NYC, I stated where they WOULD file based on their past history. You should read up on venue.
It's funny how in one post you can chastise me in one post for posting a conclusory opinion, but yet you have no problem doing the exact same thing in your response. Consistency doesn't appear to be one of your strengths. Thanks for you attempted lesson on venue. Where did you learn it? |
Originally Posted by TenYearsGone
(Post 1644179)
On the other hand, I wish there were a way to ban these over 8 hour domestic days. I am beat. The efficiency might be good, but it makes for a real tiring day especially following a short layover, no crew meals and quick turn. I, for one, will never ever bid for this type trip again:( TEN One other thing I think would decrease safety is CDO, stand ups, high speeds etc. I bring this up because my gut says we gave this away. Guys don't get the rest needed before doing these type of trips, whether they like them or not. "Some guys like them" is the response I received when talking to my reps about it = most likely done deal. We shall see but my experience with them is usually unsafe. You count on rest that you may or may not get. People who choose to fly them want to maximize their time (side business, other obligations etc.) show up already tired from a days work counting on at least 6 hrs behind the door that may not happen. When it doesn't happen, it is usually due to wx, mtc, creating more fatigue. In this situation you are legal but a walking zombie. |
Originally Posted by index
(Post 1644335)
Legally? Really? What "law" would be violated and who would enforce it? An MEC Special Committee Deputy?
So it's okay for you to leak characterizations but no specifics? Without details your "info" is mere propaganda. Are you a rep? Where are you getting your info from? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:08 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands