|
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1886144)
Except that's not why the little princess was crying. He was crying because he was being taken apart by an ATL rep who thought the concessions that have been agreed to were unacceptable. That's a huge problem because council 44 is supposed to be in the bag. If one council 44 guy flips, that changes our MEC from 10-9 candy a$$es, to 10-9 restorationists. That's why he was crying because he knew it meant going back to Michael Campbell and the rest of their management partners and family members to reverse course.
As I've said before, it's going to come down to this pilot group voting down a substandard TA. It's the shot across the bow that is the only hope of returning this Union to its rightful owners. It's the one weapon that keeps Harwood (acting MEC chairman) up at night. Nothing can wake Donutelli. Carl |
Originally Posted by full of luv
(Post 1886295)
Because EVERYTHING has a price.
If LCA trips change was offered at 5% across the board with no other negotiation, what would the group vote? If offered with 1% what would the vote be? If CDO's were only paid at GS rates, what would the group vote on that? That is the kind of thinking that got us the "B" scale. It is very easy to pick apart almost any part of our contract besides pay and create dissension in the ranks. I understand that we will have to compromise but concessions, really? Scoop |
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 1886351)
That is the kind of thinking that got us the "B" scale. It is very easy to pick apart almost any part of our contract besides pay and create dissension in the ranks.
I understand that we will have to compromise but concessions, really? Scoop Not the same as the B scale because that was splitting the group into haves and have nots. If recovery flying was reinstated, what would happen is that LCA trips would go junior again. Sometimes a junior FO would get a relatively senior trip because he wasn't able to "avoid LCAs". He/she may fly with the LCA or may get bought off and be subject to some sort of reserve commitment for the same time period which we all know means they are getting used. My only point is that this particular easter egg, no matter how hard fought for, provides for the most identifiable inefficiency that the company could try and negotiate out of the contract again for the next decade. That has a price, I think that Hockey said 2% across the board pay raise is not enough, but I suppose there is a number that a majority of the pilots would think is fair compensation for removing the easter egg. I don't agree that comparing this to a B scale is accurate. That would be like saying that A319 pilots should make more than M90 pilots despite the fact that the M90 holds more revenue and commands more attention from it's pilots, that would be divisive! |
Originally Posted by Flamer
(Post 1886341)
Maybe. The TA with concessions in multiple areas may be the final nail in the coffin. I know many have said that before, but I think the may actually be the final straw. "IF" this is the case, the door will be wide open for a swift, lethal and strategic move for alternate representation. If they don't capitalize on the opportunity..... Then.....well we are all screwed.
Everything is a concession to someone. |
Revcovery with protections is very different from witholding trips entirely. Any change is selling jobs. Jobs that we already bought by selling jobs to agree to the new hire freeze in the first place. Now we are going to possibly sell back the jobs we bought by selling jobs and end up with less jobs than when we started. Dumb move IMO.
If OE buyoffs are really such an important issue for the company (and us because the benefit is disproportional etc) they should have ZERO PROBLEM with enacting a recovery with numerous protections as well as additional offset staffing positive (for us) improvements elsewhere to make up for it. Same report or later. Same release or earlier. Greater day by day credit. Original trip redeye/WOCL protections honored. Only one pairing for one pairing (no stacking/ second bite at the apple) with hotels in domicile if needed. If original trip started or ended with a DH, the new trip must fit inside the first and last revenue leg report/release times. And we get manning positives for everyone to offset the job losses. We already sold jobs to get what we have. Witholding OE trips from the bid is a devistating concession that guts every FO categoty and hammers staffing. |
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1886397)
Revcovery with protections is very different from witholding trips entirely. Any change is selling jobs. Jobs that we already bought by selling jobs to agree to the new hire freeze in the first place. Now we are going to possibly sell back the jobs we bought by selling jobs and end up with less jobs than when we started. Dumb move IMO.
If OE buyoffs are really such an important issue for the company (and us because the benefit is disproportional etc) they should have ZERO PROBLEM with enacting a recovery with numerous protections as well as additional offset staffing positive (for us) improvements elsewhere to make up for it. Same report or later. Same release or earlier. Greater day by day credit. Original trip redeye/WOCL protections honored. Only one pairing for one pairing (no stacking/ second bite at the apple) with hotels in domicile if needed. If original trip started or ended with a DH, the new trip must fit inside the first and last revenue leg report/release times. And we get manning positives for everyone to offset the job losses. We already sold jobs to get what we have. Witholding OE trips from the bid is a devistating concession that guts every FO categoty and hammers staffing. |
Originally Posted by Flamer
(Post 1886409)
Add in pay and credit for both trips, no invol assignment if RES Avail>RES Req and you might be getting close. Trips need to be desirable and go senior.....junior guys have enough going on and shouldn't have to deal with a turd like this also.
|
Anyone care to reveal the rep? Publicly or PM will work.
Originally Posted by Timbo
(Post 1886345)
Well thank God there is at least one ATL Rep who thinks like that! I'm going to call him and thank him personally!
|
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1886417)
Either way we have to unite against trip removal. That would be a massive unprecedented concession during times of record unprecedented profits. Whiskey Tango Fud?
I'm not arguing for any changes, but just pointing out that having no recovery provision (regardless or inclusive of as many restrictions possible) should be what the company is after and should be willing to pay for. |
Originally Posted by full of luv
(Post 1886289)
Not advocating it, but I can see why the company would want as this:
Lots of training coming up over the next decade + Already behind on manpower to move the planes that they would like to move during favorable conditions. Recapturing a certain amount of productivity (i.e. required work) of pilots displaced by IOE would allow for either less hiring and/or more flying with current pilot corps. One man's concession is another's negotiation. If your a negotiator and the deal is ready to go with current work rules and then the company says, recapture IOE displaced flying for an additional 2% across the board, what would you want your negotiator to do? Say NO thank you? Say yes? Then the problem is how do you explain to the group that you had an immediate 10% raise negotiated but it was bumped to 12% based on IOE recovery flying? What price is your "concession" worth? Sell us your thoughts on including the AF/KLM grievance into C2015! How much do we get for that? I'm going to go buy a yacht. The sad fact is these concessions are all self funding. If Delta makes $500 trillion dollars a day do we still have to make concessions? Or whatever your calling them to make it hurt less. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:48 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands