When A 777A Retires........
09-09-2015 | 05:44 PM
#181
Runs with scissors
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,847
Likes: 0
From: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Hey, I've got an idea on the whole IOE trip pull nonsense. How about if they ran the F/O bids with all the trips in the pot, then 'pull' the IOE trips out, pay protect the F/O's who just got their trips pulled, and then award them their next best choice trip, to make up a 'full' line... with extra pay.
BUT...make it "voluntary", that is, there would be another choice box added to the long list of PBS choice boxes that said something like, "may remove trips for IOE and award another" or "may remove trip for IOE, DO NOT award another".
If the F/O's had that choice, the guys who want to make more money, would volunteer to have their trips pulled, be pay protected, and awarded another trip instead, or have the trip pulled and be pay protected but have more time off.
And the guys who don't want to lose out on their 'best' trips could say 'Do Not remove trips for IOE'.
The company gets their IOE trips pulled for training, but has to pay protect the guys who should have got them, and those pilots can chose to either keep their trip, work another trip and be paid for both, or they can stay home and be paid.
Just trying to think outside the box here, don't throw poo at me!
BUT...make it "voluntary", that is, there would be another choice box added to the long list of PBS choice boxes that said something like, "may remove trips for IOE and award another" or "may remove trip for IOE, DO NOT award another".
If the F/O's had that choice, the guys who want to make more money, would volunteer to have their trips pulled, be pay protected, and awarded another trip instead, or have the trip pulled and be pay protected but have more time off.
And the guys who don't want to lose out on their 'best' trips could say 'Do Not remove trips for IOE'.
The company gets their IOE trips pulled for training, but has to pay protect the guys who should have got them, and those pilots can chose to either keep their trip, work another trip and be paid for both, or they can stay home and be paid.
Just trying to think outside the box here, don't throw poo at me!
Last edited by Timbo; 09-09-2015 at 05:54 PM.
09-09-2015 | 05:50 PM
#182
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,685
Likes: 0
From: "Prof" button manipulator
Eight reps lied to you. I'm not saying it would have passed absent that. None of us know, but sales jobs work both ways. Plain enough answer? And as we can see from the latter half of this thread, guys like FTB were so "woefully misinformed", they didn't even understand what they voted for and are now in denial about the facts.
With all due respect, "eight reps lied to you" is a poor excuse for why the Tentative Agreement failed. Frankly, I'm not buying it. Mr. Anderson is much too smart of a business person/CEO to want a contract that passes MEMRAT by 50% + 1 voter.
My opinion. (Take it for what it's worth, as everyone has 'em and mine probably stinks.) D-ALPA was too confident in this passing MEMRAT. They chose NOT to take it at its net worth, and in my opinion, neglected what their constituency had asked for in an agreement.
We all know the outcome. We'll be back at the table no later than January 2016, and next time, I hope MY bargaining agent doesn't come back telling me - yelling at me - "this is the best you're gonna get".
09-09-2015 | 05:53 PM
#183
Runs with scissors
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,847
Likes: 0
From: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Rocky,
With all due respect, "eight reps lied to you" is a poor excuse for why the Tentative Agreement failed. Frankly, I'm not buying it. Mr. Anderson is much too smart of a business person/CEO to want a contract that passes MEMRAT by 50% + 1 voter.
My opinion. (Take it for what it's worth, as everyone has 'em and mine probably stinks.) D-ALPA was too confident in this passing MEMRAT. They chose NOT to take it at its net worth, and in my opinion, neglected what their constituency had asked for in an agreement.
We all know the outcome. We'll be back at the table no later than January 2016, and next time, I hope MY bargaining agent doesn't come back telling me - yelling at me - "this is the best you're gonna get".
With all due respect, "eight reps lied to you" is a poor excuse for why the Tentative Agreement failed. Frankly, I'm not buying it. Mr. Anderson is much too smart of a business person/CEO to want a contract that passes MEMRAT by 50% + 1 voter.
My opinion. (Take it for what it's worth, as everyone has 'em and mine probably stinks.) D-ALPA was too confident in this passing MEMRAT. They chose NOT to take it at its net worth, and in my opinion, neglected what their constituency had asked for in an agreement.
We all know the outcome. We'll be back at the table no later than January 2016, and next time, I hope MY bargaining agent doesn't come back telling me - yelling at me - "this is the best you're gonna get".
And don't forget, the Company opened early, not us, and the Company wanted this voted on, BEFORE the 2Q earnings reports came out. Now go look a the Q3 earnings reports. Any wonder WHY the company was in such a rush to get us to agree to yet another Cost Neutral contract and reduce Profit Sharing going forward? RA is playing Chess, our NC was playing checkers. Luckily 65% of the pilots have played chess and saw this move coming a mile out.
09-09-2015 | 06:04 PM
#184
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
And don't forget, the Company opened early, not us, and the Company wanted this voted on, BEFORE the 2Q earnings reports came out. Now go look a the Q3 earnings reports. Any wonder WHY the company was in such a rush to get us to agree to yet another Cost Neutral contract and reduce Profit Sharing going forward? RA is playing Chess, our NC was playing checkers. Luckily 65% of the pilots have played chess and saw this move coming a mile out.
see what I did there?
09-09-2015 | 06:26 PM
#185
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,707
Likes: 0
From: Permanently scarred
Hey, I've got an idea on the whole IOE trip pull nonsense. How about if they ran the F/O bids with all the trips in the pot, then 'pull' the IOE trips out, pay protect the F/O's who just got their trips pulled, and then award them their next best choice trip, to make up a 'full' line... with extra pay.
BUT...make it "voluntary", that is, there would be another choice box added to the long list of PBS choice boxes that said something like, "may remove trips for IOE and award another" or "may remove trip for IOE, DO NOT award another".
If the F/O's had that choice, the guys who want to make more money, would volunteer to have their trips pulled, be pay protected, and awarded another trip instead, or have the trip pulled and be pay protected but have more time off.
And the guys who don't want to lose out on their 'best' trips could say 'Do Not remove trips for IOE'.
The company gets their IOE trips pulled for training, but has to pay protect the guys who should have got them, and those pilots can chose to either keep their trip, work another trip and be paid for both, or they can stay home and be paid.
Just trying to think outside the box here, don't throw poo at me!
BUT...make it "voluntary", that is, there would be another choice box added to the long list of PBS choice boxes that said something like, "may remove trips for IOE and award another" or "may remove trip for IOE, DO NOT award another".
If the F/O's had that choice, the guys who want to make more money, would volunteer to have their trips pulled, be pay protected, and awarded another trip instead, or have the trip pulled and be pay protected but have more time off.
And the guys who don't want to lose out on their 'best' trips could say 'Do Not remove trips for IOE'.
The company gets their IOE trips pulled for training, but has to pay protect the guys who should have got them, and those pilots can chose to either keep their trip, work another trip and be paid for both, or they can stay home and be paid.
Just trying to think outside the box here, don't throw poo at me!
Edit: But back in serious critique mode now: Good brainstorming, but it fails in that you're taking out a bunch of the good trips a non-LCA trip awardee would have gotten because instead they're going to the FO who bid for the LCA trip, who opted to have his LCA trip paid and taken off his schedule (and then went for the extra money by taking them up on the option of adding another trip). Now I'm flying good weekend trips, and FO who was going to have to fly the weekend, but had a good trip is forced to fly the bad weekend end trip. And the FO who was happy to commute to the bad weekend trip is now commuting to reserve.
Last edited by GunshipGuy; 09-09-2015 at 06:47 PM.
09-09-2015 | 06:58 PM
#186
Banned
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
My captain rep tells me it's because profit sharing isn't sharing profit... it's a cost. I pointed out to him how in my economics class the calculation works:
Revenue - Costs = Profit
But he wasn't buying it. Was adamant profit is a cost. Just sayin' that might explain why our side doesn't fair too well in negotiations.
Revenue - Costs = Profit
But he wasn't buying it. Was adamant profit is a cost. Just sayin' that might explain why our side doesn't fair too well in negotiations.
09-09-2015 | 07:55 PM
#188
Runs with scissors
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,847
Likes: 0
From: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
I'll add a caveat: When the #1 FO bids the LCA trip the next trip he opts for in his bid can't be another LCA trip. Otherwise, we're looking at one FO getting an ungodly amount of all the LCA trips. But it would be interesting to see the FO's credit on the awarded line, wouldn't it?
Edit: But back in serious critique mode now: Good brainstorming, but it fails in that you're taking out a bunch of the good trips a non-LCA trip awardee would have gotten because instead they're going to the FO who bid for the LCA trip, who opted to have his LCA trip paid and taken off his schedule (and then went for the extra money by taking them up on the option of adding another trip). Now I'm flying good weekend trips, and FO who was going to have to fly the weekend, but had a good trip is forced to fly the bad weekend end trip. And the FO who was happy to commute to the bad weekend trip is now commuting to reserve.
Edit: But back in serious critique mode now: Good brainstorming, but it fails in that you're taking out a bunch of the good trips a non-LCA trip awardee would have gotten because instead they're going to the FO who bid for the LCA trip, who opted to have his LCA trip paid and taken off his schedule (and then went for the extra money by taking them up on the option of adding another trip). Now I'm flying good weekend trips, and FO who was going to have to fly the weekend, but had a good trip is forced to fly the bad weekend end trip. And the FO who was happy to commute to the bad weekend trip is now commuting to reserve.
09-09-2015 | 08:02 PM
#189
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
There are many contractually enforceable items that are not in the TA. At the road shows, the Negotiating Committee referenced the contractually binding letter that limited the OE pulls to in-base OEs. Don't believe me. Call Contract Admin or your own reps. Ask them if it's routine to have these types of agreements.
It's unfortunate that guys here wish to rewrite the history of this agreement.
It's unfortunate that guys here wish to rewrite the history of this agreement.
Complete BS Mullis/Curly/Harwood. Nothing is contractually enforceable if it's not in the contract or the failed TA. Your claims are in neither of those documents. Your claim of a post-TA negotiated letter that changed OE trip pulls is pure fiction.
Carl
09-09-2015 | 08:55 PM
#190
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,253
Likes: 96
From: DAL 330
And don't forget, the Company opened early, not us, and the Company wanted this voted on, BEFORE the 2Q earnings reports came out. Now go look a the Q3 earnings reports. Any wonder WHY the company was in such a rush to get us to agree to yet another Cost Neutral contract and reduce Profit Sharing going forward? RA is playing Chess, our NC was playing checkers. Luckily 65% of the pilots have played chess and saw this move coming a mile out.
Checkmate!
See what I did?
Scoop
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
