When A 777A Retires........
09-08-2015 | 06:07 PM
#141
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 2,960
Likes: 0
From: Power top
Your fault might have more to do with the fact you're overly invested in a flawed premise and can't let it go. It's been known to happen to mission oriented people. Take for instance, Japanese soldiers held out on Iwo Jima for decades.
Good luck.
09-08-2015 | 06:08 PM
#142
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
First of all, there's really no need for the passive aggressive comment at the end. And you wonder why D-ALPA is so highly respected? 
Secondly, your "facts" do not match the "will" of the pilot group. Does that "FACT" make sense to you, or will you continue to post your greater than thou opinion, all the while touting it as fact, when it really is just your opinion.
Secondly, your "facts" do not match the "will" of the pilot group. Does that "FACT" make sense to you, or will you continue to post your greater than thou opinion, all the while touting it as fact, when it really is just your opinion.
09-08-2015 | 06:14 PM
#143
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 2,960
Likes: 0
From: Power top
I fully ACK the difference between fact and opinion, but when, for example, FTB gives an example such as the one where he was bought off an out of base OE without acknowledging that he would have been treated exactly the same way had the agreement passed, then that's problematic because it shows he did not understand the TA he voted on. I'm not picking on him, but that's one example of the reams of misinformation that existed and still exists today. Hey, I was not thrilled with the TA either, but in the end I made my decision based on facts and not fallacies or scare tactics. And no, I am not suggesting that everyone or even most of those who voted no did otherwise, but as this example points out, some did not understand what was in the agreement when they voted.
09-08-2015 | 06:19 PM
#144
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Wrong. It's very realistic as the retirements kick in mass. Just pointing out you want to ignore the fact that the ta allows it.
And you need to go read the ta again, the ta absolutely did not carve out the out of base OE. Read it. Read it for the first time I guess.
And you need to go read the ta again, the ta absolutely did not carve out the out of base OE. Read it. Read it for the first time I guess.
"The company may only withhold time for OE/TOE completed in the
trainee’s category. If there aren’t enough LCA in the trainee’s corresponding LCA’s category (same base), the Company cannot withhold the projected block hours for that training, and this is a significant factor in many categories."
09-08-2015 | 06:21 PM
#145
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,685
Likes: 0
From: "Prof" button manipulator
I fully ACK the difference between fact and opinion, but when, for example, FTB gives an example such as the one where he was bought off an out of base OE without acknowledging that he would have been treated exactly the same way had the agreement passed, then that's problematic because it shows he did not understand the TA he voted on. I'm not picking on him, but that's one example of the reams of misinformation that existed and still exists today. Hey, I was not thrilled with the TA either, but in the end I made my decision based on facts and not fallacies or scare tactics. And no, I am not suggesting that everyone or even most of those who voted no did otherwise, but as this example points out, some did not understand what was in the agreement when they voted.
D-ALPA speaks of this "misinformation" causing the TA to fail. You speak of it above! The misinformation of the pilot group, and the blame of ALPA for the TA being voted down, is at best a tired argument.
In my opinion, D-ALPA had EVERY opportunity to present all of the cold, hard facts in a PRO/CON paper to the pilot group. In contrast, they chose to "sell" it to the pilot group like a superficial (political) ad campaign. (Seen any of those lately?)
Believe what you want, but this pilot group is much more intelligent than D-ALPA and the Company give them credit for being.
09-08-2015 | 06:33 PM
#146
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
From page 4 of Contrails 24:
"The company may only withhold time for OE/TOE completed in the
trainee’s category. If there aren’t enough LCA in the trainee’s corresponding LCA’s category (same base), the Company cannot withhold the projected block hours for that training, and this is a significant factor in many categories."
"The company may only withhold time for OE/TOE completed in the
trainee’s category. If there aren’t enough LCA in the trainee’s corresponding LCA’s category (same base), the Company cannot withhold the projected block hours for that training, and this is a significant factor in many categories."
Hell, I'll post it for you.
I fully ACK the difference between fact and opinion, but when, for example, FTB gives an example such as the one where he was bought off an out of base OE without acknowledging that he would have been treated exactly the same way had the agreement passed, then that's problematic because it shows he did not understand the TA he voted on. I'm not picking on him, but that's one example of the reams of misinformation that existed and still exists today. Hey, I was not thrilled with the TA either, but in the end I made my decision based on facts and not fallacies or scare tactics. And no, I am not suggesting that everyone or even most of those who voted no did otherwise, but as this example points out, some did not understand what was in the agreement when they voted.
I guess the problem is I read the TA and not the contrails.
But if you're going to argue that "that's not realistic" you're actually doing just the opposite. The only thing that is reality is the PWA, everything else is fantasy. If you leave the gate open, they'll stampede through it. Hell, with the RAH thing a few years we've seen the gate locked shut and DALPA legal team go and open for them and explain the gate wasn't really locked to begin with.
09-08-2015 | 07:46 PM
#147
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Okay, I'll do the math.
So in the real world mix, the few 3-day trips will probably be gone early, nearly half the 4-days with weekends off would be gone before bidding started and that leaves FOs south of say 10-20% short changed. And that's if FO #1 didn't bid his/her favorite trip only to have it pulled.
Then it affects 100% of the FOs and it will really hurt in December, November and July. I don't think anyone wants to see 1 trip they bid for removed before the award process begins, much less 8% of the trips they bid on magically removed. And of that 8%, a good portion if not all of them are choice trips such as Christmas off, weekends off, etc.
It goes back to that ALPA saying that if you mess with a pilots pay, they'll get mad at you, mess with their schedule and they'll kill you.
- 81% of the total trips in my category for October are 4-days.
- 27% of the total trips in my category for October are 4-days with weekends off.
- That means of the available 4-day weekends off trips, 51% of them are at risk of being pulled, and 38% of them will be pulled and unavailable to be awarded.
- So instead of 27% of the trips being 4-day trips with weekends off, now you only have 16%.
So in the real world mix, the few 3-day trips will probably be gone early, nearly half the 4-days with weekends off would be gone before bidding started and that leaves FOs south of say 10-20% short changed. And that's if FO #1 didn't bid his/her favorite trip only to have it pulled.
Then it affects 100% of the FOs and it will really hurt in December, November and July. I don't think anyone wants to see 1 trip they bid for removed before the award process begins, much less 8% of the trips they bid on magically removed. And of that 8%, a good portion if not all of them are choice trips such as Christmas off, weekends off, etc.
It goes back to that ALPA saying that if you mess with a pilots pay, they'll get mad at you, mess with their schedule and they'll kill you.
09-08-2015 | 08:34 PM
#148
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,844
Likes: 0
From: 765-A
That is a contrail, doesn't mean ****. The PWA is all that matters. Go read the TA.
Hell, I'll post it for you.
See above.
I guess the problem is I read the TA and not the contrails.
But if you're going to argue that "that's not realistic" you're actually doing just the opposite. The only thing that is reality is the PWA, everything else is fantasy. If you leave the gate open, they'll stampede through it. Hell, with the RAH thing a few years we've seen the gate locked shut and DALPA legal team go and open for them and explain the gate wasn't really locked to begin with.
Hell, I'll post it for you.
See above.
I guess the problem is I read the TA and not the contrails.
But if you're going to argue that "that's not realistic" you're actually doing just the opposite. The only thing that is reality is the PWA, everything else is fantasy. If you leave the gate open, they'll stampede through it. Hell, with the RAH thing a few years we've seen the gate locked shut and DALPA legal team go and open for them and explain the gate wasn't really locked to begin with.
09-09-2015 | 02:59 AM
#149
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
I don't think the company would have ever wanted it to be restricted to in category only OE can be pulled. You look at my category and you see that the oe for all 4 bases and primarily done out of here. Why would they want to chance us being bought off like we are now, negates the whole reason for demanding this paragraph.
And I know line 6, which is untouched from the current PWA was what Slow said was where the in category requirement came from. But line 6 is line 6, line X is not a subparagraph of 6. And line 6 had to specificy that it was category , line X is missing that specific term... for a reason.
And I know line 6, which is untouched from the current PWA was what Slow said was where the in category requirement came from. But line 6 is line 6, line X is not a subparagraph of 6. And line 6 had to specificy that it was category , line X is missing that specific term... for a reason.
09-09-2015 | 04:35 AM
#150
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
That is a contrail, doesn't mean ****. The PWA is all that matters. Go read the TA.
Hell, I'll post it for you.
See above.
I guess the problem is I read the TA and not the contrails.
But if you're going to argue that "that's not realistic" you're actually doing just the opposite. The only thing that is reality is the PWA, everything else is fantasy. If you leave the gate open, they'll stampede through it. Hell, with the RAH thing a few years we've seen the gate locked shut and DALPA legal team go and open for them and explain the gate wasn't really locked to begin with.
Hell, I'll post it for you.
See above.
I guess the problem is I read the TA and not the contrails.
But if you're going to argue that "that's not realistic" you're actually doing just the opposite. The only thing that is reality is the PWA, everything else is fantasy. If you leave the gate open, they'll stampede through it. Hell, with the RAH thing a few years we've seen the gate locked shut and DALPA legal team go and open for them and explain the gate wasn't really locked to begin with.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
