|
|
Originally Posted by Jack Bauer
Another example of how "wins" turn out not being wins later. If/when the new contract is in place, expect to find out all kinds of ways the company took ALPA to the cleaners in the small print. I'm sure there's notes on LOA 29 which basically indicate that this is just a written form of what was done prior to LOA 29 with the exception that senior people could exercise their seniority to sit short call. First thing I'll do, obviously, is do a keyword search for the phrase "to the extent possible". If I find it, I'll immediately rant about it on here. |
Originally Posted by dragon
(Post 1189351)
Credit refers to your monthly guarantee. If you accept a GS with under 12 hours to report on a on call day, that one will be paid above the guarantee with nothing counting against your 70 hours. The other "on-call" days will be against your 70 hours and the X days will be paid above the guarantee with PB (pay back) days granted.
Generally reserves don't get "double" pay, but it goes on top of the guarantee so that's a huge positive. IA is basically the same. Good luck |
Yep, Just talked about Terminal F in ATL, Fuel pricing and European Pricing. Nothing special.
|
Originally Posted by maddogmax
(Post 1189398)
Yep, Just talked about Terminal F in ATL, Fuel pricing and European Pricing. Nothing special.
|
Originally Posted by SailorJerry
(Post 1189392)
That's why it'd be ideal if the negotiators notes were made available with the TA as their admissible in a grievance hearing. There's all sorts of stuff in every contract that is governed more by the section 6 process than the language.
I'm sure there's notes on LOA 29 which basically indicate that this is just a written form of what was done prior to LOA 29 with the exception that senior people could exercise their seniority to sit short call. First thing I'll do, obviously, is do a keyword search for the phrase "to the extent possible". If I find it, I'll immediately rant about it on here. |
Originally Posted by Boomer
(Post 1189275)
There are several explanations for RA wanting a rushed agreement, but out of these two (out of many) possibile outcomes, which has better odds?
1 The TA is approved and then RA says "whoops, I think the pilots got way too much for what I had planned. My fleeting opportunity turned into an ALPA windfall, those darned ALPA negotiators!" -or- 2 The pilots vote in the TA, RA's "fleeting opportunity" is revealed, and the pilots say "This is just another LGA slot swap scam! I shoulda voted HellNO! ALPA should have seen this coming!" |
Not anymore... I've sat 3 with a 4th tomorrow... that's bucket 2. The other dude is still in bucket one with 1 short call If I understand it right...
|
Originally Posted by Jack Bauer
Yes, please do!........... Even though a law dictionary finds SHALL to be imperative it's not as concrete as WILL. I figure it's easier to get a clear intent through negotiations and a good Contract Administrator can easily add "Or Else" to the end. |
Originally Posted by Red Five
Not anymore... I've sat 3 with a 4th tomorrow... that's bucket 2. The other dude is still in bucket one with 1 short call If I understand it right...
|
Originally Posted by Jack Bauer
(Post 1189380)
Another example of how "wins" turn out not being wins later. If/when the new contract is in place, expect to find out all kinds of ways the company took ALPA to the cleaners in the small print.
Jack, I agree with this. Seems like it happens with some stuff every contract. That being said, it'll happen in a contract 5 years from now too....... Denny |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:22 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands