|
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 1902904)
Are you referring to this?
June 11, 2015 Contract 2015 Chairman’s Update #1 Fellow pilots of Council 66, ... “For those around the horseshoe who want to reject it but plan to pass it along to the pilots to ‘let them decide,’ I ask, ‘What purpose do you serve? Why have an MEC?’ ... Respectfully, Tom Tom Brielmann Chairman Council 66 Capt. Rep [email protected] 401-388-0707 “Member Driven” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU |
I guess we didn't get door pay either? Buddy on 4th floor says E190s already signed for, they come either way.
|
Originally Posted by 300SMK
(Post 1902977)
I guess we didn't get door pay either? Buddy on 4th floor says E190s already signed for, they come either way.
And the 40 additional 737's that have already been announced to be replacments for higher paying equipment are coming either way as well. Current book with the NMB is looking better and better. |
Originally Posted by SharpestTool
(Post 1899537)
What did you all expect? AA +20? That ain't happening in any universe. We ended up with AA +15. Damn, that isn't enough?
Actually I'm waiting for one of you to say "that isn't true, PS isn't guaranteed." Which I will say sure is according to everyone who says 8,0,3,3. The only way that happens is if we have over 6 billion in profit like 2014. Then they forget that the remaining 11% of PS pays out. ADD it up. AA +15%. Can't have it both ways. Insisting profits are here forever and not account for the PS in total compensation. If this is rejected we continue down the path, fine. Next March we have an appointment with the NMB. They will laugh when we say AA +15% just ain't enough. You better drop the crack pipe if you think an iceberg isn't part of that future. NMB can do math boys and girls. They understand TVM as well. They really don't like Poo Monkeys who play with gasoline cans and matches. |
Would the new hire seat lock be retro active to new hires currently in their first year or to those hired after its signed?
|
Originally Posted by capncrunch
(Post 1902983)
Would the new hire seat lock be retro active to new hires currently in their first year or to those hired after its signed?
You never know since we're selling concessions in the best environment in history but I'd still be the answer is 99% no. |
Originally Posted by Dirtdiver
(Post 1902875)
Underwhelmed by the pay increase, sick leave kicks it to a solid NO
|
Originally Posted by Professor
(Post 1902874)
For number 2, please see my response to QBall about how pay works out under worst case scenario.
Oh boy, my personal take. Right now I am a serious fence sitter. The first thing to come to grips with is the fact that no matter how you slice it, it is more money. It is more money period. For Delta dudes (gender neutral use of dude) it gets us to C2K + a little. No it is not inflation adjusted. For fNWA it gets the highest rates ++inflation. on average the same equipment is their highest rates plus 20% or more. The question everyone has to ask themselves in this vote is THAT money better than what you think the loss is in changes to sick/LCA are. The JV language is a neutral proposition I feel (not a gain by any stretch). Keeping in mind that sick leave is still the same amount-wise, just verification has changed. Nobody can tell an individual pilot what that is worth to them, they have to decide as individuals. But to that I will add that the changes to FAA leave and mental health leave are a huge huge gain in sick leave policy. The LCA thing is a concession. Is it worth more than what is to be gained in this contract over the next three years? I haven't answered that yet. I just don't know. Again the above are ONLY my personal opinions (aside from the pay thing), so please regard them as such and not the position of your union. C2012 was a modest increase in pay in a slightly profitable year(1.5B or so). We made over 4.5B in 2014 and are expected to exceed that this year. So using a linear strategy, since we made 3 times as much money we should expect 3 times the pay. We seem to be willing to sacrifice pay and QOL in this contract during the best negotiating environment in memory. I don't understand. |
Originally Posted by capncrunch
(Post 1902990)
Don't forget about how bad the joint venture changes are. I believe those to be the most damaging.
|
I saw this over on chitchat. More Easter eggs to add to the pile.
The issue is the retention of the language "circumstances over which the Company does not have control” in the contract. The inclusion completely negates what the NC is telling the pilots as to the effect of striking "mechanical on pilot's assigned aircraft" means. The TA summary has the following bullet point... Removed “mechanical” from circumstances beyond Company control language related to reroute pay o The only non-premium pay reroute is for WX on pilot’s routing and closure of origin/destination airport Now, let's look at the actual contract language in 23.L.8 https://s3.amazonaws.com/files.websi...149680/2343593 Pay attention to line 31-32. See the problem? Let me explain it to you. The PWA says that you will not receive premium pay for "circumstances over which the Company does not have control." That is the general rule. It then goes on to give examples of situations beyond the company's control. Notice the use of the latin "e.g.". This means "such as." In other words, these are mere examples of things beyond the company's control. They used "e.g" for a specific reason---it's because this is not an exhaustive list of things beyond the company's control. Now, go back and read the second bullet point above from the NC's TA highlights. The PWA language does NOT say this. Any first year law school student would understand this. This is a major FAIL on the part of the NC for not catching this. Where are the ALPA lawyers who proofread this? This is pathetic. If the intent of both parties was what is spelled out in the NC bullet above (in blue), then lines 31-32 need to be struck in their entirety, "e.g." needs to be removed, and replaced by the blue bullet point above. "Reroute" is touted as a major gain. I don't see it that way. The contractual language is horrible. You think the company doesn't know there's a hole in here a mile wide? So much for that "win." Update: I just heard back from NC Chairman John Morgado regarding the reroute issue I've raised above. John admits that the list of items in the contract are just examples, i.e. they are not the only things beyond the company's control. He says the company "currently" not paying for mechanical and weather. He specifically used the word "currently" which I thought was entirely appropriate because the company can allege at ANY time in the future additional circumstances that they claim are "beyond their control." He went on further to state that we can rely on "past practice." YHGTBKM. This is naivete at its worst. If the true intent of the parties is as was stated in the bullet point (in blue) above, then the "circumstances over which the Company does not have control” language needs to be struck in its entirety. John gave no indication that he would seek a change in contractual language with the company. I am very disappointed in this response. Surely if this is what the parties agreed to it should be a simple fix, right? This is a huge deal folks. The NC just doesn't get it. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:05 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands