The company can negotiate for anything they want at any time with the MEC. That's why we elect reps to represent us. We can delete it from the TA and they can ask for it the next day.

 

Actually no: the phrase, "we never thought they would do that" is much like like "loss of QOL" in that it is a complete, made up line of hoo-ha that exists only in our gray matter because it is endlessly repeated on forums, without any real world examples to back them up.

 

Are you really saying that the company has never taken advantage of a contract language loophole? Seriously??? Or ever "reinterpreted" a contract provision? They have teams of lawyers combing through the language over this very thing as we speak.

 

You gonna run for any MEC positron this fall just to protect your position? You'd better...since you don't trust em or the guys who might get elected.

 

.
Do you mean run for MEC at his current CRJ job?

Either he's lazy at updating his profile (unlikely) or he likes stirring the pot at OAL forum threads.


asacimesp
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Position: CRJ Captain
Posts: 153
.

 

If I were to lose a single trip that I would have both wanted and been senior enough to hold, and have to fly a trip that in my eyes that is inferior, it's a loss of QOL. If because trips were moved around in some shell game I'm forced to work a child's birthday, holiday, or any old day I'd rather not then it is a loss of QOL.

I think the way the company has taken advantage of FAR 117 is concrete evidence of how "we never thought they would do that" is applicable. How about the way CS gives out trips to reserve pilots that leak into their following line-holder month at single pay. I bet you never thought they'd do that, yet in this contract we had to give up negotiating capital to get rid of that complete and utter BS.

On the flip side, your argument is the one without basis. You make an inflammatory and incorrect statement without a shred of proof then act as if you're holding some sort of moral high ground. +1 for using gray matter in a sentence though, that was almost clever.

 

I don't doubt it for a second. You think that YOUR MEC reps are a bunch of Pollyannas? I have never once in 20 years heard the phrase "we never thought that they would do that." It only exists in the mindset of the Internet message boards.

Your reps, your negotiators etc are well aware that the company will exploit what they could. That's why negotiating precise contractual language is so important and why we spend a lot of time doing so.

As for new concepts that have some unknowns, such as VBs, I'm glad that we can squash it if we deem it appropriate. I am 100% sure of one thing, 99% sure of a second thing, and about 80% sure of a third.

1. The MEC will very carefully deliberate and discuss even to a fault before they decide one way or the other on continuing VBs. There will be no surprise "gotchas."

2. Whatever the decision there will be some sub group of pilots upset about it. There will be a different sub group upset if the opposite decision were made.

3. Two to three years from now we may look back and see that VBs were not as big a deal as we perhaps had predicted.

 

I've been thinking about this, and I think I am starting to not care for it so much. Here's why: Let's say the VB opened is MCO. In the 7ER category, currently we are currently flying GRU from MCO in the NYC base. (and I cannot hold it currently so there is no bias it is just an example) . So if anybody in the 7ER category can bid it, then perhaps a SEA guy (and they are ALL senior out there) bids MCO for a winter month. So then the flying is taken from his base. First, what exactly does that mean? Secondly, big fat deal, because the formerly NYC trip is now being flown by someone from another base. But the flying is "taken" from SEA. What flying?

If the flying that goes to a virtual base that is taken from a base is open first of all to those pilots, and anybody that bids it from another base falls after them in the VB, then it might be OK, but that would be an abrogation of seniority. And then we all know what would happen; Every good trip would be suddenly in the ATL bid packages prior to the creation of VBs.

Since no base "owns" any flying, (as I have been told by the rotation construction committee) all that has happened is that trips that could formerly be held by a more junior pilot is now held by more senior guys that did not have that flying in their bid package before. And the added bonus is that NYC category would become more senior because those trips would be removed from their bid package.

All this being said, since we can pull it down it is worth a look.

 

No... I'm certain there are much more qualified people out there who have a greater knowledge base and a desire to sit in an office and serve. I've done the office life in the financial world and don't care for it. I prefer to fly the line any day.

That being said I think this issue is too important to delegate to an unknown group of people 12 months from now. And while in a perfect world they do....in reality the priorities and motivations of the MEC do not always align with that of the pilot group as a whole. So as I truthfully stated earlier "we" can't pull this down when we want to.

 

I noticed that as well.