They created this mess
06-30-2015 | 11:43 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 833
Likes: 5
From: Captain
They created this mess
Assuming this TA fails, or even passes by a close margin, I feel we are in for a major change going forward wrt DALPA. Why? I think they have awoken the sleeping giant.. The pilot electorate.
First, with all the gnashing of teeth taking place and attacks by the pundits of the machine, they should realize they created this mess by presenting a TA that had this many poison pills. Were the reps not in touch with their constituents desires? (to some extent they must have been since there was no formal recommendation). Or, was it just simple arrogance that "we can sell" the electorate no matter what the deal? Either way, there is an ever-growing group desiring leadership change and the reality that abstaining in LEC elections actually has a consequence.
If this TA passes, it is no vindication of the machine or its pundits as it has put the electorate in an awful position. A close yes vote may actually do more harm to the current MEC than failure of the TA. Failure actually gives the reps and admin a chance to have a redeeming moment. If it passes, I think the process of replacing reps will be expedited and the replacements will certainly not fit in the current mold, if anything, the other extreme. This assumes that we aren't in the middle of a representation fight.. Something that I think could be a real possibility if the "leader" of the alternative group were replaced by someone with legitimacy.
Once they are seated, I can see an immediate change by recall or resignation and many of the old guard finding themselves on the street...Guys who have not been full or even part time line pilots in over 10 years. These are the people who have been advising the MC. Maybe the advisors lack of time flying the line contributed to the problem. The fact they seem to condone the attack dogs you see here or on CC, leaves no doubt in my mind that they have no idea how to communicate to the moderate/independents amongst our pilot group. Of course a few of the most vested will be retired soon anyway, so I guess it is of no consequence to them.
Yep, interesting times ahead, Guys I know who have never given a flip about union politics can't wait for the recall or the next election. If it goes the way I think it will go, those responsible will have nobody to blame but themselves.
First, with all the gnashing of teeth taking place and attacks by the pundits of the machine, they should realize they created this mess by presenting a TA that had this many poison pills. Were the reps not in touch with their constituents desires? (to some extent they must have been since there was no formal recommendation). Or, was it just simple arrogance that "we can sell" the electorate no matter what the deal? Either way, there is an ever-growing group desiring leadership change and the reality that abstaining in LEC elections actually has a consequence.
If this TA passes, it is no vindication of the machine or its pundits as it has put the electorate in an awful position. A close yes vote may actually do more harm to the current MEC than failure of the TA. Failure actually gives the reps and admin a chance to have a redeeming moment. If it passes, I think the process of replacing reps will be expedited and the replacements will certainly not fit in the current mold, if anything, the other extreme. This assumes that we aren't in the middle of a representation fight.. Something that I think could be a real possibility if the "leader" of the alternative group were replaced by someone with legitimacy.
Once they are seated, I can see an immediate change by recall or resignation and many of the old guard finding themselves on the street...Guys who have not been full or even part time line pilots in over 10 years. These are the people who have been advising the MC. Maybe the advisors lack of time flying the line contributed to the problem. The fact they seem to condone the attack dogs you see here or on CC, leaves no doubt in my mind that they have no idea how to communicate to the moderate/independents amongst our pilot group. Of course a few of the most vested will be retired soon anyway, so I guess it is of no consequence to them.
Yep, interesting times ahead, Guys I know who have never given a flip about union politics can't wait for the recall or the next election. If it goes the way I think it will go, those responsible will have nobody to blame but themselves.
Last edited by RonRicco; 06-30-2015 at 11:45 AM. Reason: punctuation
06-30-2015 | 11:50 AM
#2
Banned
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Assuming this TA fails, or even passes by a close margin, I feel we are in for a major change going forward wrt DALPA. Why? I think they have awoken the sleeping giant.. The pilot electorate.
First, with all the gnashing of teeth taking place and attacks by the pundits of the machine, they should realize they created this mess by presenting a TA that had this many poison pills. Were the reps not in touch with their constituents desires? (to some extent they must have been since there was no formal recommendation). Or, was it just simple arrogance that "we can sell" the electorate no matter what the deal? Either way, there is an ever-growing group desiring leadership change and the reality that abstaining in LEC elections actually has a consequence.
If this TA passes, it is no vindication of the machine or its pundits as it has put the electorate in an awful position. A close yes vote may actually do more harm to the current MEC than failure of the TA. Failure actually gives the reps and admin a chance to have a redeeming moment. If it passes, I think the process of replacing reps will be expedited and the replacements will certainly not fit in the current mold, if anything, the other extreme. This assumes that we aren't in the middle of a representation fight.. Something that I think could be a real possibility if the "leader" of the alternative group were replaced by someone with legitimacy.
Once they are seated, I can see an immediate change by recall or resignation and many of the old guard finding themselves on the street...Guys who have not been full or even part time line pilots in over 10 years. These are the people who have been advising the MC. Maybe the advisors lack of time flying the line contributed to the problem. The fact they seem to condone the attack dogs you see here or on CC, leaves no doubt in my mind that they have no idea how to communicate to the moderate/independents amongst our pilot group. Of course a few of the most vested will be retired soon anyway, so I guess it is of no consequence to them.
Yep, interesting times ahead, Guys I know who have never given a flip about union politics can't wait for the recall or the next election. If it goes the way I think it will go, those responsible will have nobody to blame but themselves.
First, with all the gnashing of teeth taking place and attacks by the pundits of the machine, they should realize they created this mess by presenting a TA that had this many poison pills. Were the reps not in touch with their constituents desires? (to some extent they must have been since there was no formal recommendation). Or, was it just simple arrogance that "we can sell" the electorate no matter what the deal? Either way, there is an ever-growing group desiring leadership change and the reality that abstaining in LEC elections actually has a consequence.
If this TA passes, it is no vindication of the machine or its pundits as it has put the electorate in an awful position. A close yes vote may actually do more harm to the current MEC than failure of the TA. Failure actually gives the reps and admin a chance to have a redeeming moment. If it passes, I think the process of replacing reps will be expedited and the replacements will certainly not fit in the current mold, if anything, the other extreme. This assumes that we aren't in the middle of a representation fight.. Something that I think could be a real possibility if the "leader" of the alternative group were replaced by someone with legitimacy.
Once they are seated, I can see an immediate change by recall or resignation and many of the old guard finding themselves on the street...Guys who have not been full or even part time line pilots in over 10 years. These are the people who have been advising the MC. Maybe the advisors lack of time flying the line contributed to the problem. The fact they seem to condone the attack dogs you see here or on CC, leaves no doubt in my mind that they have no idea how to communicate to the moderate/independents amongst our pilot group. Of course a few of the most vested will be retired soon anyway, so I guess it is of no consequence to them.
Yep, interesting times ahead, Guys I know who have never given a flip about union politics can't wait for the recall or the next election. If it goes the way I think it will go, those responsible will have nobody to blame but themselves.
06-30-2015 | 12:45 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Likes: 0
Assuming this TA fails, or even passes by a close margin, I feel we are in for a major change going forward wrt DALPA. Why? I think they have awoken the sleeping giant.. The pilot electorate.
First, with all the gnashing of teeth taking place and attacks by the pundits of the machine, they should realize they created this mess by presenting a TA that had this many poison pills. Were the reps not in touch with their constituents desires? (to some extent they must have been since there was no formal recommendation). Or, was it just simple arrogance that "we can sell" the electorate no matter what the deal? Either way, there is an ever-growing group desiring leadership change and the reality that abstaining in LEC elections actually has a consequence.
If this TA passes, it is no vindication of the machine or its pundits as it has put the electorate in an awful position. A close yes vote may actually do more harm to the current MEC than failure of the TA. Failure actually gives the reps and admin a chance to have a redeeming moment. If it passes, I think the process of replacing reps will be expedited and the replacements will certainly not fit in the current mold, if anything, the other extreme. This assumes that we aren't in the middle of a representation fight.. Something that I think could be a real possibility if the "leader" of the alternative group were replaced by someone with legitimacy.
Once they are seated, I can see an immediate change by recall or resignation and many of the old guard finding themselves on the street...Guys who have not been full or even part time line pilots in over 10 years. These are the people who have been advising the MC. Maybe the advisors lack of time flying the line contributed to the problem. The fact they seem to condone the attack dogs you see here or on CC, leaves no doubt in my mind that they have no idea how to communicate to the moderate/independents amongst our pilot group. Of course a few of the most vested will be retired soon anyway, so I guess it is of no consequence to them.
Yep, interesting times ahead, Guys I know who have never given a flip about union politics can't wait for the recall or the next election. If it goes the way I think it will go, those responsible will have nobody to blame but themselves.
First, with all the gnashing of teeth taking place and attacks by the pundits of the machine, they should realize they created this mess by presenting a TA that had this many poison pills. Were the reps not in touch with their constituents desires? (to some extent they must have been since there was no formal recommendation). Or, was it just simple arrogance that "we can sell" the electorate no matter what the deal? Either way, there is an ever-growing group desiring leadership change and the reality that abstaining in LEC elections actually has a consequence.
If this TA passes, it is no vindication of the machine or its pundits as it has put the electorate in an awful position. A close yes vote may actually do more harm to the current MEC than failure of the TA. Failure actually gives the reps and admin a chance to have a redeeming moment. If it passes, I think the process of replacing reps will be expedited and the replacements will certainly not fit in the current mold, if anything, the other extreme. This assumes that we aren't in the middle of a representation fight.. Something that I think could be a real possibility if the "leader" of the alternative group were replaced by someone with legitimacy.
Once they are seated, I can see an immediate change by recall or resignation and many of the old guard finding themselves on the street...Guys who have not been full or even part time line pilots in over 10 years. These are the people who have been advising the MC. Maybe the advisors lack of time flying the line contributed to the problem. The fact they seem to condone the attack dogs you see here or on CC, leaves no doubt in my mind that they have no idea how to communicate to the moderate/independents amongst our pilot group. Of course a few of the most vested will be retired soon anyway, so I guess it is of no consequence to them.
Yep, interesting times ahead, Guys I know who have never given a flip about union politics can't wait for the recall or the next election. If it goes the way I think it will go, those responsible will have nobody to blame but themselves.
The only explaination is a short term share price boost to make our execs more millions as they bail out.
06-30-2015 | 01:44 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
I think the best outcome for ALPA Inc. is for this to get voted down and reworked in a positive way. If the TA passes narrowly and guys have to work under it, the drumbeat to toss the whole organization will grow in intensity.
06-30-2015 | 01:55 PM
#5
FlySmarterNotHarder
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 596
Likes: 1
From: fifi flyer
To Council 44:
Pay: 8/0/3/3 is insufficient.
Profit Sharing: We said don’t touch profit sharing. How much clearer could we be?
Work Rules: Traded away FO OE trips for the few for other things for the many. I get it.
Scope: Why allow more RJ70/76s to reduce RJ50s and buy E190s? RJ 50s are going away anyway and the company can buy E190s anyway. They can also raise the payrates on those E190s to something more reasonable via LOA. The company has already indicated the current E190 rate is undesirable.
EASK convert to block hours = goodbye $30m grievance settlements for future noncompliance
Benefits: No more voluntary verification to protect unverified sick time. That is the real key and you know it. Big fail.
Fear of a rejected TA? Not buying it this time.
Better company offer in the near term? Probably not. When SWA, FDX, and UPS settle their contracts we will be next in line to pattern bargain up. Thats what the NMB will see. This TA is so disappointing I’d rather just keep the one we have for now.
In the meantime, yes, rearrange the deck chairs. Forget using negotiating capital to buy E190s and 737s. Negotiate an industry leading sick bank like everyone else has, or a PTO system like our own FAs have. And negotiate pay raises retroactive to the amendable date. We’ve had retro pay before and it had better be part of an extended negotiation.
Pay: 8/0/3/3 is insufficient.
Profit Sharing: We said don’t touch profit sharing. How much clearer could we be?
Work Rules: Traded away FO OE trips for the few for other things for the many. I get it.
Scope: Why allow more RJ70/76s to reduce RJ50s and buy E190s? RJ 50s are going away anyway and the company can buy E190s anyway. They can also raise the payrates on those E190s to something more reasonable via LOA. The company has already indicated the current E190 rate is undesirable.
EASK convert to block hours = goodbye $30m grievance settlements for future noncompliance
Benefits: No more voluntary verification to protect unverified sick time. That is the real key and you know it. Big fail.
Fear of a rejected TA? Not buying it this time.
Better company offer in the near term? Probably not. When SWA, FDX, and UPS settle their contracts we will be next in line to pattern bargain up. Thats what the NMB will see. This TA is so disappointing I’d rather just keep the one we have for now.
In the meantime, yes, rearrange the deck chairs. Forget using negotiating capital to buy E190s and 737s. Negotiate an industry leading sick bank like everyone else has, or a PTO system like our own FAs have. And negotiate pay raises retroactive to the amendable date. We’ve had retro pay before and it had better be part of an extended negotiation.
06-30-2015 | 03:58 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,872
Likes: 189
To Council 44:
Pay: 8/0/3/3 is insufficient.
Profit Sharing: We said don’t touch profit sharing. How much clearer could we be?
Work Rules: Traded away FO OE trips for the few for other things for the many. I get it.
Scope: Why allow more RJ70/76s to reduce RJ50s and buy E190s? RJ 50s are going away anyway and the company can buy E190s anyway. They can also raise the payrates on those E190s to something more reasonable via LOA. The company has already indicated the current E190 rate is undesirable.
EASK convert to block hours = goodbye $30m grievance settlements for future noncompliance
Benefits: No more voluntary verification to protect unverified sick time. That is the real key and you know it. Big fail.
Fear of a rejected TA? Not buying it this time.
Better company offer in the near term? Probably not. When SWA, FDX, and UPS settle their contracts we will be next in line to pattern bargain up. Thats what the NMB will see. This TA is so disappointing I’d rather just keep the one we have for now.
In the meantime, yes, rearrange the deck chairs. Forget using negotiating capital to buy E190s and 737s. Negotiate an industry leading sick bank like everyone else has, or a PTO system like our own FAs have. And negotiate pay raises retroactive to the amendable date. We’ve had retro pay before and it had better be part of an extended negotiation.
Pay: 8/0/3/3 is insufficient.
Profit Sharing: We said don’t touch profit sharing. How much clearer could we be?
Work Rules: Traded away FO OE trips for the few for other things for the many. I get it.
Scope: Why allow more RJ70/76s to reduce RJ50s and buy E190s? RJ 50s are going away anyway and the company can buy E190s anyway. They can also raise the payrates on those E190s to something more reasonable via LOA. The company has already indicated the current E190 rate is undesirable.
EASK convert to block hours = goodbye $30m grievance settlements for future noncompliance
Benefits: No more voluntary verification to protect unverified sick time. That is the real key and you know it. Big fail.
Fear of a rejected TA? Not buying it this time.
Better company offer in the near term? Probably not. When SWA, FDX, and UPS settle their contracts we will be next in line to pattern bargain up. Thats what the NMB will see. This TA is so disappointing I’d rather just keep the one we have for now.
In the meantime, yes, rearrange the deck chairs. Forget using negotiating capital to buy E190s and 737s. Negotiate an industry leading sick bank like everyone else has, or a PTO system like our own FAs have. And negotiate pay raises retroactive to the amendable date. We’ve had retro pay before and it had better be part of an extended negotiation.
06-30-2015 | 05:48 PM
#7
FlySmarterNotHarder
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 596
Likes: 1
From: fifi flyer
Anyway, a quick check of the IFS work rules shows they get 49 hrs/yr of PPT they call it now. And you can bank unused hours or get paid for them.
Lots more details than that of course, but hey, we will have the "gold standard" of PPT systems right? So how about 80 or 100 hours of bankable PPT time for pilots. Its not that far fetched. You know we used to get seven weeks of vacation, right? Anyway, forget about verification. Why not?
Use up your PPT hours and get unpaid trip drop or go straight to disability. Which is a verification situation of course.
06-30-2015 | 05:54 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,872
Likes: 189
Haha. Well I didn't mean to use their system exactly. When they first converted a number of years back they only got 27.5 hrs a year. I knew it was over 40 something hrs now.
Anyway, a quick check of the IFS work rules shows they get 49 hrs/yr of PPT they call it now. And you can bank unused hours or get paid for them.
Lots more details than that of course, but hey, we will have the "gold standard" of PPT systems right? So how about 80 or 100 hours of bankable PPT time for pilots. Forget about verification. Why not?
Use up your PPT hours and get unpaid trip drop or go straight to disability. Which is a verification situation of course.
Anyway, a quick check of the IFS work rules shows they get 49 hrs/yr of PPT they call it now. And you can bank unused hours or get paid for them.
Lots more details than that of course, but hey, we will have the "gold standard" of PPT systems right? So how about 80 or 100 hours of bankable PPT time for pilots. Forget about verification. Why not?
Use up your PPT hours and get unpaid trip drop or go straight to disability. Which is a verification situation of course.
06-30-2015 | 06:56 PM
#10
FlySmarterNotHarder
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 596
Likes: 1
From: fifi flyer
49 hours a year is way more than I've needed over the last 24 years. If I could bank that I'd have over a thousand hours by now, potentially.
Airline sick banks vary, from 60 to 90 hours a year. Bank limits seem to be around 1000 to 1300 hours. Maybe PPT would be less than that since it is paid time off for anything, not just sick.
Still, our FAs get 49 hrs a year. We can do better than that. It has merit IMO.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
