|
|
Originally Posted by orvil
(Post 1650829)
That's okay. I think everyone is full of crapp.
Serious question: Is there any way to put everyone on ignore and only accept underboob? |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1650862)
I missed this post in the page change. Your search-fu is weak, Fly. Log in to the website and use this link It is still posted.
The reasons for the failure were posted by the "new" C20 officers (Tucker/Rizutto/Massey) after their first MEC meeting: Reinstatement of Illegals Fails-Conflicts with PWA section 12.D.1 and 12.Q. Pending NPRM Flight-Duty It looks like your council officers kept you up to date. Surprising that you didn't remember something that has become so contentious.:D The usual suspects? Not quite the way you envisioned, eh?;) Besides, given the track record of success that C20 has in getting things their way on the MEC, the idea of them actually succeeding getting this to the table if even a couple of other councils were against it is laughable. I spoke to my reps on this...did anyone else bother to ask them? They had no idea there even was a resolution for this in the past (why would they? It went and failed three years before they were in even in office). It wasn't even at the bottom of their list of issues, so to somehow tie them to the magical appearance of SDPs, obliquely or otherwise, is highly questionable. The FO rep said he flew "illegals" at NWA (as did I), and he told me he was HIGHLY allergic to them, and would never vote in favor of something he wouldn't do himself. If you guys want to know where they came from, I would suggest an email or phone call to the Negotiating Committee. Their addresses are on the committee page of the ALPA MEC site (under the "committee" pull down menu). You can also reach them by phone by calling the MEC office. It's a "standing committee", which means they're there M-F (except holidays). Certainly SDPs didn't simply manifest out of thin air, so they should know all about it. The "new" committee isn't the same as the people who negotiated this, but they should have the info. Nu |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1650802)
Nope, but apparently you are. I focused on the facts.
Your mirror must be a tough reflection. Yup, we're not paid enough. You're currently receiving $2.35 per hour less than you did on the same equipment in 2004. You've got a frozen pension. That sucks. On the upside, you're getting 15% DC. You got 8.2% profit sharing this year. The airline is finally growing again (looks like 850 new hires this year), and the speed of that upgauging came from a contract you deride and argued against. The MEC just approved another mid contract deal that put an additional $36 million per year in pilot pockets. And all those similarly situated airlines that negotiated after you are still behind you. Oh, and $750 million of the money that you mentioned is being used to pay pension debt early - why didn't you mention that?:rolleyes: Why was your self worth so low when you willingly agreed to undercut the contract you aspire to by 10-15% back in 2003? If you are going to represent management, have Richard proof read your posts. I get it and respect your opinion that you agree with management that our pay is a permanent reset. I think we deserve 20% plus date of signing and 5% a year, 3 year PWA. In addition, "historic" gains all the way around as promised by our MEC in True Headings 14-2. |
Slow
I freely admit I don't remember the exact numbers, but I was a 757 captain in 2000 and at the peak $256 and change. Time and a half overtime. If I am wrong please post the NWA pay charts here. What were you flying in 2000? And what did it pay? I don't see any point to your posts other than to lower expectations. It's the ALPA way. |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1650861)
lulz.... Going back to work on the upcoming vote? OR did Tim just let his attack dog out for a breath of air?
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1649011)
I don't think that's a concern. Nobody wanted ALPA off our property more than me, but the pilots appear to have spoken on this. I don't think ALPA is going anywhere regardless of memory rat.
|
Originally Posted by EdGrimley
(Post 1650869)
Now the whole CDO is being blamed on some "rogue north pilots" by some here. And yet the company "couldn't care less about CDO's". Why did we need to give up another hour on long call to take something back the company was supposedly not interested in to begin with?
The process at ALPA is broken. Not for logistic or monetary reasons. It is my belief they don't set up an efficient process to let the membership get more involved because they (the MEC) do not want to give up control. I believe management also does not want the union to give up their ability to make unilateral decisions. It certainly works to their advantage. It's interesting to watch the "group think" and top down managerial philosophy indoctrinated into all who join the upper representation. Politics are rampant with many focusing on upward advancement while trying to align with those they feel will take them the furthest. They are taught that "line pilots" are unsophisticated thinkers incapable of understanding how important a tight knit liaison with management is in getting things done. Therefore the secrecy and control. Unfortunately this personalized relationship with management can cause loyalty issues for fear of offending the high powered friends they have become so close to. It would be relatively easy to use the various electronic means available today to involve pilots through polling, live Q and A, vetting, voting, etc at a very reasonable cost. A lot of guys would take the time to weigh in. Make it easy instead of layering barriers to entry with antiquated policy/protocol. We preach CRM in the cockpit but our union is not interested in creating the structure to best utilize CRM with regard to communication, contract/TA's, work rules, side letters, compensation, etc. And then they feign disappointment and confusion when there is an uproar as we just saw. And yet nothing ever changes. No lessons learned. No protocol changed. They continue in their divisive ways. They keep tight fisted on control and we keep making the same dumb mistakes, divided as ever. You have to laugh when unity is preached, while very little is put into place to achieve it. Carl |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1650862)
I missed this post in the page change. Your search-fu is weak, Fly. Log in to the website and use this link It is still posted.
The reasons for the failure were posted by the "new" C20 officers (Tucker/Rizutto/Massey) after their first MEC meeting: Reinstatement of Illegals Fails-Conflicts with PWA section 12.D.1 and 12.Q. Pending NPRM Flight-Duty It looks like your council officers kept you up to date. Surprising that you didn't remember something that has become so contentious The usual suspects? Not quite the way you envisioned, eh?;) If it was direction, as opposed to NC originated, then it had to be the will of the body as a majority, in which case the MEC owns it. I sort of doubt they just all of a sudden decided to resurrect the issue and vote as a majority to include it the TA out of respect for a 4 year old C20 resolution :cool: I guess C20 only gets the credit when it's unpopular or when looking for political cover. Too bad the direction and discussion was in executive session and not public or I doubt you'd be getting away with the state sponsored slime. :eek: Also too bad that Scrappies amazing powers of engagement with the company and the ability to negotiate last minute changes on the fly weren't put to use back in the C2012 TA. |
Originally Posted by NuGuy
(Post 1650885)
Soooo, a 4 year old, failed resolution made it onto the negotiating committee's plate exactly how? Doesn't stuff that goes to the committee require a majority of the MEC to sign off on it before it actually gets negotiated?
Besides, given the track record of success that C20 has in getting things their way on the MEC, the idea of them actually succeeding getting this to the table if even a couple of other councils were against it is laughable. I spoke to my reps on this...did anyone else bother to ask them? They had no idea there even was a resolution for this in the past (why would they? It went and failed three years before they were in even in office). It wasn't even at the bottom yof their list of issues, so to somehow tie them to the magical appearance of SDPs, obliquely or otherwise, is highly questionable. The FO rep said he flew "illegals" at NWA (as did I), and he told me he was HIGHLY allergic to them, and would never vote in favor of something he wouldn't do himself. If you guys want to know where they came from, I would suggest an email or phone call to the Negotiating Committee. Their addresses are on the committee page of the ALPA MEC site (under the "committee" pull down menu). You can also reach them by phone by calling the MEC office. It's a "standing committee", which means they're there M-F (except holidays). Certainly SDPs didn't simply manifest out of thin air, so they should know all about it. The "new" committee isn't the same as the people who negotiated this, but they should have the info. Nu I am very glad they voted for MEMRAT however. What's your take on points of learning here? Did we learn anything? Or are we as totally dysfunctional as we were when Roberts was recalled? Carl |
Originally Posted by Fly4hire
(Post 1650914)
Also too bad that Scrappies amazing powers of engagement with the company and the ability to negotiate last minute changes on the fly weren't put to use back in the C2012 TA.
Carl |
Carl,
Reread carefully the quoted C1 update: "The tentative agreement reached last week by the negotiators met the direction the MEC had provided to them over the course of multiple meetings, including a “mid-course adjustment” two months ago. During the 7-day review period required by the MEC Policy Manual, it became apparent that the modeling and assumptions regarding Split Duty Period (SDP) flying (aka “CDOs”, “Illegals”, “Stand-ups”) was not what we envisioned when we gave direction to the negotiating committee several months ago. Also, your feedback during the last week solidified our view that the addition of SDPs was not in the best interest of Delta pilots. It’s important to note that the 7-day review period was established to allow exactly this type of reassessment." I suggest you call the C1 and your own Reps, and was as suggested, the NC directly. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:42 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands