|
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1897820)
This is what I sent to my reps:
I'm sure you guys have already gotten an earful to vote NO on this TA, and I want you to count me in that camp as well. Concessions of any kind in this environment are unacceptable to me - especially in areas where our survey said the negotiators were not to touch. For me, if scope is not strengthened, it must be an automatic NO regardless of what's in the rest of it. Scope concessions of any kind are unacceptable. More importantly however, you need to send this back for the sake of our reps' role in our union. This top-down governance has to stop. Sending back a concessionary TA that didn't follow the will of our survey, is exactly what's needed to remind this administration who runs this union. You'd not only be doing this for you, you'd be doing it for all the reps that will follow you in the future. I simply won't be able to support anyone in this union that doesn't fight for reps' rule, and is willing to concede on Scope. Carl What info do you have regarding the conditions of the TA? Your letter sounds like you are aware of the agreement's terms. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
With all the mail flowing to the reps, none of them will have the time to come visit APC.........
|
Originally Posted by GucciBoy
(Post 1897831)
What info do you have regarding the conditions of the TA? Your letter sounds like you are aware of the agreement's terms.
Carl |
Ok, so all we have is rumors at this point. BUT, the rumors we do have are all negative. Well, to most of us they're negative. Maybe giving up 5% of PS for 5% of pay and adding 2% on top of that is fine for some, but I think MOST of us can agree that in this environment (i.e. with the multiple BILLIONS in profit the company is making and the increased number of BILLIONS in profit the company is expected to make) that something more is needed in this TA, right?
So riddle me this: Who in the HE double hockey sticks can put up any kind of defense for such horse squeeze? I mean, who are these APC members and where did they come from? About all that is justifiable in a sane world is for an APCer who doesn't want to buy into the notion that there might be more truth to the (very likely) rumor of a turd coming in this TA to say, "Hey, I'm not willing to say no until I see what's in it." Other than that or, "I heard it was not as bad as the rest of you seem to think." But any talk like "Are you willing to wait 3 years if it's turned down." or the like is unbelievable. Seriously? That just boggles the mind. Apparently this kind of individual would take 4/1/1/1 with 4% given back in PS and concessions in sick leave, scope, and LCA OE bumps. Again, who are these APCers and are they even part of our pilot group? https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...df99662cc0.jpg |
Originally Posted by TripleF
(Post 1897801)
A 3% inflation rate YOY is not realistic. If you look at data on st. louis federal reserve bank's website, the dollar is buying MORE. Also, look at exchange rates with other currencies. The dollar is STRONGER.
|
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1897842)
The Council 1 update showed me the TA gave a shopping cart full of concessions to management. The Council 1 update also showed me that our cart was not very full. The MEC administration's constant denigration of profit sharing tells me there's a cut in profit sharing. Another source tells me there are indeed scope concessions. That'll do it for me.
Carl |
Originally Posted by Army80
(Post 1897825)
BTW, the very definition of "Negotiate" means to deal or bargain with another or others. The only reason the company hasn't "iced" us and gone into the usual 3-5 year contract model is that they need something.
Originally Posted by Army80
(Post 1897825)
I'm willing to see what it is and what value we can garner from their needs. Your belief that we should not deal with or bargain with the company would never get us a deal. It's unrealistic and will cost the pilot group.
If we don't like the deal we can vote no. I can tell you now. If the rumored give backs are only half true, and the rumored rates are accurate, we didn't get anything other concessionary contract in the most wildly profitable era of the airline industry, that has benefited and continues to from their new pricing paradigm. Unbundled Fees How much was that stock buy back and dividend package for? Time to move labor peace to the edge of the table. Careful with that! That labor peace is made of fine bone China. It breaks easily. |
Originally Posted by Army80
(Post 1897825)
We all pay dues. Some have to mention it all the time.
Do you think the rep you sent your email to said, "Wait a minute, I got a message from a guy that pays dues, better put that one at the top of the list." ? BTW, the very definition of "Negotiate" means to deal or bargain with another or others. The only reason the company hasn't "iced" us and gone into the usual 3-5 year contract model is that they need something. I'm willing to see what it is and what value we can garner from their needs. Your belief that we should not deal with or bargain with the company would never get us a deal. It's unrealistic and will cost the pilot group. If we don't like the deal we can vote no. Sure, contracts are give and take. The last one was their take and this one is their give! And if they don't want to give, I'll take their accidental give (profit sharing) as is in the current contract. |
Originally Posted by TED74
(Post 1897853)
Problem is, my house isn't in Greece, and the one I do own went very underwater.
I sold my home several years ago for a gain. For there to be winners, there must be losers. |
Originally Posted by TED74
(Post 1897854)
The only rep I've heard talking with my own ears (pilot lounge in Atlanta) was doing zero listening. He was transmit-only trying to convince two sequential PS supporters that they were wrong to want it untouched.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:43 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands