|
Originally Posted by 76drvr
(Post 1711170)
Section 3.b.6 of the Delta PWA allowed the company to operate a new aircraft while we negotiated pay rates for it. The underlined section which I have highlighted allowed the pilots to park the fleet if after 6 months we had not come to an agreement on rates of pay. The company had to agree to our 777 pay rates or the 777 fleet would be parked. This provided the leverage to set the record reates of pay on the 777 and created the Delta "dot", which UALPA used to pattern off of.
That's what I just can't fathom today. How the hell did we get here. Carl |
Proactive Appeasement, that's how.
|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1711199)
We originally opened for something way beyond 265 dollars an hour. The negotiating committee did not even like the opener and after the fact stated several times we could have had a agreement early on at a higher rate had we not opened around 400 an hour.
Oh the humanity. Carl |
Originally Posted by 76drvr
(Post 1711289)
those 11.000 controllers made up nearly 100% of the controllers in the country. There are roughly 80,000 commercial airline pilots of which we make up about 15% of the workforce and serve about 25% of the capacity. Rough numbers but in the ballpark.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be disruptive, but it wouldn't be Armegedon either. So your plan is an illegal job action, which has failed miserably in the past, got it. You going to run for office and bring us all restoration with your plan? Further Appeasement? 4-8-3-3 ain't going to get us there in my lifetime. Go read Flying the Line, vol. I and II. How do you think our pay rates got to where they were in the first place? Hint; Appeasement wasn't in their vocabulary. |
Originally Posted by RetiredFTS
(Post 1711216)
I know the pros/cons of publishing contract survey results has been beaten repeatedly the last 2 years, but how about publishing the company's openers? What did they come to the table expecting. It would give us a measure of the effectiveness of our NC. I certainly would like to see both results and openers after C2015. Holding my breath.
Carl |
Originally Posted by 76drvr
(Post 1711238)
How'd that illegal job action work for PATCO?
If we demanded a contract that led the industry in every measure, and the NMB threatened to not release us, it could be argued that it would be the NMB that was violating the law by misusing their charter to remove the legal right to strike. The PATCO comparison is absolutely apples and oranges. Carl |
Originally Posted by gzsg
(Post 1711243)
I oppose any concessions, but that is not the will of the MEC unless it changes. Perhaps we will get some LAX reps that are not on board in the upcoming election.
Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1711319)
PATCO were government employees, and as such, their contract contained a no-strike clause. Our contract does not.
If we demanded a contract that led the industry in every measure, and the NMB threatened to not release us, it could be argued that it would be the NMB that was violating the law by misusing their charter to remove the legal right to strike. The PATCO comparison is absolutely apples and oranges. Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1711322)
Hey buzz and the other LAX bro's...are the LAX reps pu$$ies like the ATL reps? Do they need to be replaced?
Carl :D |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1711322)
Hey buzz and the other LAX bro's...are the LAX reps pu$$ies like the ATL reps? Do they need to be replaced?
Carl |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:04 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands