|
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 2165801)
There is nothing contractually preventing them [SDPs]. The company doesn't want to pay 10:30 for them, though.
Bingo!!! filler |
Originally Posted by KnotSoFast
(Post 2166029)
There have been senior dudes, who PBS bid a trip that blocks in after 23:00 on the night before vacation starts. They also bid a HUGE trip that begins on the day after their vacation ends. Then it's a simple matter of coming up with an excuse that gets their flight late to their base > 23:31. BINGO, huge trip gets dropped and paid and vacation magically inflates.
Originally Posted by Herkflyr
(Post 2166419)
That is why there are buffers in PBS and the contract, to prevent this very scenario.
Instead, the company overreaches (again) to attempt to institute a rule that will have far-reaching implications (several potential examples cited in this thread already), of the "we didn't think they'd do that" variety.... |
It's pretty amazing to me how easy it is for some of us to accept the concessions in the AIP's with the reasoning they aren't as bad as TA15 or they won't affect me.
The company is making amounts of money never dreamed of before despite the alleged "sick leave abusers" and vacation trip sharpshooters and without Virtual Bases, not to mention the expert, highly paid, fuel hedgers. And they will continue making just as much with them in the future. Getting rid of them is meaningless other than to prove to management that we are still unwilling to fight for what we deserve. These profits are due in very large part to the concessions we've been working under for the last 15+ years. Why our "negotiators" didn't just laugh in their face when the company came to them with their needs is beyond me. If we cannot get what we deserve now under the best negotiation environment we will probably ever see, we are truly as stupid as the company thinks we are. |
Originally Posted by longcall
(Post 2167390)
It's pretty amazing to me how easy it is for some of us to accept the concessions in the AIP's with the reasoning they aren't as bad as TA15 or they won't affect me.
The company is making amounts of money never dreamed of before despite the alleged "sick leave abusers" and vacation trip sharpshooters and without Virtual Bases, not to mention the expert, highly paid, fuel hedgers. And they will continue making just as much with them in the future. Getting rid of them is meaningless other than to prove to management that we are still unwilling to fight for what we deserve. These profits are due in very large part to the concessions we've been working under for the last 15+ years. Why our "negotiators" didn't just laugh in their face when the company came to them with their needs is beyond me. If we cannot get what we deserve now under the best negotiation environment we will probably ever see, we are truly as stupid as the company thinks we are. The company has us on our heals trying to figure out all the numerous ways they will screw us with newly entered items that your union is getting ready to TA while all the real wants in QOL, work rules and retirement are quickly forgotten. Seriously ladies and gents, time to eject ALPA. Midstream is OK. Take the time and put the pieces in place to get this contract right. No more selling QOL for industry standard pay. It's beyond stupid. |
Originally Posted by longcall
(Post 2167390)
It's pretty amazing to me how easy it is for some of us to accept the concessions in the AIP's with the reasoning they aren't as bad as TA15 or they won't affect me.
The company is making amounts of money never dreamed of before despite the alleged "sick leave abusers" and vacation trip sharpshooters and without Virtual Bases, not to mention the expert, highly paid, fuel hedgers. And they will continue making just as much with them in the future. Getting rid of them is meaningless other than to prove to management that we are still unwilling to fight for what we deserve. These profits are due in very large part to the concessions we've been working under for the last 15+ years. Why our "negotiators" didn't just laugh in their face when the company came to them with their needs is beyond me. If we cannot get what we deserve now under the best negotiation environment we will probably ever see, we are truly as stupid as the company thinks we are. |
PS- One MEC picket during managements 8 minute meeting followed by one basewide picket is not the definition of exerting pressure. Pull Malone from the game. Should have done this the second he stopped uttering RESTORATION.
We don't NEED a quick deal. We NEED the right deal. Without major changes this week we need to pull the plug and change our CBA. |
Originally Posted by Jughead135
(Post 2167317)
First of all, that's a case of "damning with faint praise" if ever I saw one.
Second, why is TA-1--the failed, utterly sub-par, first-time-ever at Delta voted down TA from over a year ago--any sort of yard stick whatsoever to measure any future TA against, particularly give the state of the industry and the gains made by other pilot groups? Looking at the failed TA at all for any purpose with regard to the "good" or "bad" merits of a new TA is, in my opinion, a play into management's hand. As Clamp stated they removed some of the more onerous provisions from the last TA, but that potential deal was so lacking that it is a dubious at best qualifier. As to using TA-1 as a yardstick goes it does not matter - this TA will pass or fail on its merits or lack thereof. The reason that I and some others have mentioned this is because we were repeatedly assured by the smart men at DALPA that a TA rejection would result in (pick your favorite): PEB Lesser value TA Cats and Dogs living together etc. Well apparently some of the "smartest men in the room" were wrong. Scoop |
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 2167448)
Damming with faint praise is exactly what I was trying to convey. Did you miss this from the very same post that you quoted?
As Clamp stated they removed some of the more onerous provisions from the last TA, but that potential deal was so lacking that it is a dubious at best qualifier. Scoop The real meat and potatoes in the contract are yet to be addressed. I don't really understand all the screaming. Heck, if what has been AIP'd now was in there last year along with what mgmt just proposed, I likely would have voted yes. They've got to come up from their section 3 proposal significantly (including full retro and unchanged profit sharing), plus vacation, medical, and DC... all of which have not been addressed. I'm willing to wait and see the total package |
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 2165801)
There is nothing contractually preventing them. The company doesn't want to pay 10:30 for them, though.
Sorry if I was being too subtle and thanks for making my point. With the proof of how this business model works, there is no reason for them to pay anything less. If SDPs show up in this agreement, they should reflect their full and proper credit value. |
Vacation. I seem to work awfully hard in vacation months. It's almost onerous from my personal scheduling perspective.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:08 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands