Not necessarily... It sounds to me like Envoy was ultimately offered the same as what PSA and Piedmont were. And it sounds like Envoy ALPA wanted more (which is great, good on you and I would of hoped you got it because what your union negotiated was far and above what PSA and Piedmont got). So Envoy ALPA and Envoy management discussed it, negotiated, and came to an AIP. Then when Envoy management went back to AAG for what they thought would be approval they basically said, “No the deal was for pay rates. You have no authority to negotiate anything outside of what we said you could”.

So to me, an outsider, it would seem that your management dropped the ball here. Why exactly they would agree to something without first running it by their own bosses is beyond me. Perhaps it was simply a negotiating tactic to make it clear that AAG was offering nothing but pay rates? But that doesn’t make sense. Why go through all the effort at all? The only thing that really makes sense is that they completely bungled this opportunity.

 

I’m sure that will be their claim, but as one who was actually involved in those negotiation 2013-2016 I can say that the people they sent had authority to agree. If it was out of bounds they’d break and reschedule to get approval.
I know for a fact that’s accurate. I did the NY base closure LOA after a few days of back and forth, it ended up getting done in about 45 minutes of back and forth between their lawyers and ours. Finally our lawyers said they weren’t going back in to demand more and that I’d have to do it myself. I did. (FO Rep came with me) In 15 minutes I got everything I asked for including A1 travel to work, pay protected removals from un commutable trips, unlimited hotels and a stack of other things.
I heard later that Group wasn’t pleased, and that the A1 travel to/from work caused them huge problems with every other work group. They hated every part of that LOA but their negotiators had agreed to it.
If they send somebody, they have authority to deal. They may end up unemployed afterwards, but they have the authority. It’s a huge “failure to bargain in good faith” lawsuit otherwise..... if they can’t approve, they break and get permission.

 

Who ever was negotiating for mgt had aag authority, they were instructed on the boundaries that limited their negotiation authority, so I dont believe envoy went beyond what aag instructed. Envoy mgt has no balls to go against aag, so I dont believe their excuse.
It's just drag it out any way to see if the mec comes back with a lower request. Mec should not give up what was already agreed to. Mec should do a media blitz.

 

So what’s the purpose for what happened here at Envoy? After the tens of millions they’ve been investing in all 3 WOs these past few years why now do this? If it was intentional and not bumbling then what is the goal? They need no negotiating leverage because they already have leverage. All they do is stand to lose by not increasing compensation at one WO while the other 2 enjoy raises.

 

Arrogance and ignorance on the part of mgmt is the only explanation I can come up with. I don’t think they realized just how royally ****ed the pilot group would get over this betrayal.

 

As I started in a previous post. You are dealing with the most unethical, egotistical, abusive, corrupt, unscrupulous management team to ever lead a corporation. There is a delusional reason for everything they do. They do not sign an AIP without approval. I wouldn’t be surprised to see AAG just testing to see just how far they can push before getting sued.
It’s the same with their bargaining. They write language that later they’ll say means something other than what you thought. They’ll then use the arbitration process to push the CBA even a little farther. It’s all a game to them.

 

You mean BetrAAyed.... we had those stickers and gifs back when they demanded a second round of concessions after getting the exact bankruptcy contract they claimed in writing was needed to re-fleet Eagle with E175’s....

 

When an irate customer won't stop yelling at a CSR, the CSR will always blame some faceless manager that the customer can't talk with. Works 90% of the time.

Here, Envoy blamed AAG and we can't talk to them. It's a cop out. Stand tall, don't budge, and they will come around. They have too.

 

Mec should go public about the aip fiasco,

 

Well...they did issue a comm about it. It's not really a secret...