|
|
Originally Posted by Han Solo
(Post 2568320)
The system lets you break the rules at the beginning and end of the month. Only my anecdotal experience, no contract reference. I try to abuse those dates to make myself as unavailable to CS as possible.
When will this mindset ever change? See the scheduling channel on you tube. Links on the crew resources page. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 2566967)
Denny,
Exactly, the last contract was sent out for ratification. The MEC itself voted it down 3 times (4 if the initial HECK NO counts). The MEC did not recommend it. At the time the pilots were clamoring to see the thing. Richard Anderson said he was going to pull the deal off the table and offer less. Did the pilots deserve the right to see it before Richard Anderson's threat expired? The thought was, if the pilots turned it down the voice of the pilots would be more persuasive than just the 19 member MEC. Now, the MEC Admin believed Richard Anderson would make good on his threats and they DID push ratification. The pilots did not make the distinction between the Reps and the Admin. Richard Anderson broke constructive engagement because in his view it always worked out better for the pilots. In any event he did not want our costs higher than United & American. Of course at the time who knew United would use our rejected TA to leapfrog us and since they did not have profit sharing (to speak of), profit sharing was not an issue. Richard left and we patterned off United who had patterned off of our non-existent rejected TA. Who knew? Worked out. A festivus miracle if ever I saw one. |
Originally Posted by deadseal
(Post 2568293)
Someone a while back said this was the case, but wondering if anyone has ops tested this scenario.
If you have an X day on the second to last day of the month(I.e. you have one on call day starting on the last day of the month), will Pbs make you be on call for the first 3 days (my cat is 4-99-4) regardless of what you bid? In essence is it possible to “trick” the system into giving you a grouping of on call days less than your category demands for that month? Thanks! https://onedrive.live.com/embed?cid=...oadButton=True |
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2568356)
That's not abuse. It's proper use of the system to bid as you like.
When will this mindset ever change? See the scheduling channel on you tube. Links on the crew resources page. |
Originally Posted by Han Solo
(Post 2568320)
The system lets you break the rules at the beginning and end of the month. Only my anecdotal experience, no contract reference. I try to abuse those dates to make myself as unavailable to CS as possible.
|
Originally Posted by Han Solo
(Post 2568320)
The system lets you break the rules at the beginning and end of the month. Only my anecdotal experience, no contract reference. I try to abuse those dates to make myself as unavailable to CS as possible.
|
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 2568602)
Is that just for a RES one month to a line holder the next month, or can that be done for reserve to reserve?
|
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 2566976)
Bar,
Were you in the room when the MEC discussed/said this? I'm referring to: "The thought was, if the pilots turned it down the voice of the pilots would be more persuasive than just the 19 member MEC." As I said, I'm a line pilot. Always have been, always will be. From a line pilots perspective, the MEC let them down. It should never have been approved and put to a vote. I don't care about the nuances or what was being said by whom (RA or the MEC in this case). I care about the bottom line. It's the MEC's job to make hard decisions like this, not to punt. If they didn't think it would pass, they should have voted it down period. The fact that they didn't, tells me they passed the buck. End of story. I get the impression you think we should thank United for their deal. The root cause of a better deal for us (TA-2) and a better deal for a lot of the industry, was because we voted down that POS. Not because of United. As you said United used our rejected deal as a springboard for theirs. If we wouldn't have rejected........would they have done as well as they did? I don't think so. Denny Background:
The vote was to send the TA to the pilots without MEC recommendation. That is a matter of record and anyone who is interested should be able to get a copy of the resolution from our MEC Secretary. One problem was that when the Admin and some Reps confronted the miscommunications (& outright lies) they were perceived as defending the TA when in reality they were just trying to ensure the pilots truly understood what the deal really was. I constantly got caught up in trying to explain 1 E. 9. and 1 P. 4. and being called a "liar" although quoting directly from the TA. In retrospect, the less said, the better. John Malone's Admin mostly remained off Social Media and was better for it. History clearly indicates better was available by waiting. United did a +1 on our non existent rejected TA and we managed to +1 them while improving scope and leaving profit sharing alone. Some parts of the rejected TA were actually better than C15, but the retention of profit sharing more than made up for those changes. - sorry about the edits, the battery in the keyboard is dead - |
Bucking Bar,
I am curious what sent without recommendation means? I ask because I was at the road show where the chairman went off and yelled at everyone in the room, because most people didn’t like the agreement. Also I knew a guy who was a P2P volunteer and he was told to sit out because he was against the agreement. There were plenty of P2P volunteers who did not sit out who were for the agreement. I’m not meaning to sound argumentative because this is in the past. I’m actually just curious. Thanks |
It was a sell job. No way to obfuscate it or rewrite history.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:42 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands