THAT. That is 100% verifiably wrong.

First hand. September 24, 2015. John Malone. Many witnesses as well.

I believe you need to post facts, not your constant conjecture. Your credibility isn't at the platinum level. It's far short and you might want to refrain from tarnishing it further, or not.

 

He didn't. See post above.

 

I guess we interprete this statement differently however when the letter came out there were several posters here who took it the same way I do.


After reviewing the polling, and hearing from the expanded team, the MEC reached consensus that our best path forward is a focused approach to re-engaging with management. We informally refer to this path as "focused plus". We know the areas of the last tentative agreement (TA) that must be readdressed (the "focus"), and we are preparing to address other areas of the contract that should have been part of the TA (the "plus"). Any modifications and additions to be sought will be directed by your MEC in a steady and business-like manner.

Here are a few forum comments:

He committed to improving the failed TA.
That in itself is a failure.
We need to start from scratch. Forget that abomination ever existed.

To a certain extent, I agree.


But using NA15 as a starting point is a strategic pitfall. So many concessions and shortcomings...we'd be negotiating with an anvil chained to our feet.

Using NA15 as the starting point is the ultimate win for those who seek to squelch our expectations.
It only took 7 weeks to negotiate NA15. I'm perfectly content to consider that time a sunk cost. Let's start with a clean slate, new survey, and a much more robust shopping list.

Agreed. Burn TA15 and start clean with the new reps in March.

 

Actually I have a small issue with our current contract language. There is still an option for a "medical release" in C12. The company has no right, and no reason snooping around in my private medical records. for any reason. period. I will continue to vote against any contract that does not remove medical release language.

While the medical release does not violate the letter of the HIPPA law, it certainly violates the spirit of it.

 

The option for medical release has been in the contracts longer then the most senior pilot working. I have never heard of a single instance of the company abusing it. I suspect the company feels they have some legal obligation to insure fitness of its pilot group. The only use of records I am aware of is the company trying to assist pilots in getting a medical reinstated.

What I find interesting is the majority of pilots believe the medical release requirement originated with his TA and some have attempted to portray it as so.

 

You are correct, it preceded the HIPPA laws. The reason HIPPA was instituted was to give the individual control of their medical records and the enhance privacy protections. The reason for the law was employers and potential employers overreaching requests. Just because it was "grandfathered" into our contract doesn't make it acceptable. Especially to those who grew up with HIPPA protection and had no choice in the contract forfeiting that protection.

 

Guys,

I personally don't care if we use the failed TA as a starting point or start from scratch - the end result will pass or fail on its merits - not its origin.

Speaking of TA do-overs, here is a quote from a SWA thread - the similarities are amazing:

"Now let’s talk about the rumor
the second deal will be worse.

I do not believe that is true. The economy, fuel prices, interest rates, load factors, and the supply of qualified pilots all continue to be and are forecast to be well in our favor the next few years. These are different times and different metrics than the only time we turned down a contract. In all probability, this is an epic time to be negotiating.
We are not interested in rearranging the money. It will require more money and the Company can afford it."

Remember, the above is from a Southwest post. I guess management is doing a pretty good job throughout the industry trying to suppress labor gains. Nothing new here, but eerily similar to our situation.

Scoop

 

I understand your position. I would guess that that will remain the same though, since it's been in the contract so long.


What we have now is way better than the medical release threshold contained in the TA though.

 

Complete bullcrap.

Please explain how the company snooping around in a pilot's medial records "insure[s] [sic] fitness of [the] pilot group"? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

By definition, if a pilot has called in sick, he has self-grounded himself because of a known medical deficiency as he/she is required to do under FAR 61.53.

What purported "legal obligation" does the company have, as you "suspect," to protect its customers from a pilot who is NOT AT WORK BECAUSE HE HAS CALLED IN SICK??? What liability does the company have, as the result of a pilot who has self-grounded himself and is NOT FLYING AN AIRPLANE? Hmmmmmm?????

Maybe there is an argument for providing additional medical information to prove you are fit enough to operate a/c, but that's not what the issue is here. There have been cases of this in the past, but these instances are very rare.

The concern of the pilot group is having to "prove" that they were sick. The mechanisms in place currently are subtle, sometimes outright overt, harassment to make pilots think twice about calling in sick---so as to avoid the hassle.

Perhaps some of that is going on right now, despite your protestations that it's not.

 

Index with the sledgehammer.

Index is right. It's also my understanding that bad-faith "good faith" verification demands by the CPO are back in style.