Didn’t that grievance settlement extend the 29 a month to all? Was I misinformed? I thought that was a good settlement, but if all it did was get the MEC members to AA a few months earlier and left the rest unchanged then they should be tar & feathered....

No, only the PPs.
Drops to "no less than 15" after them for 10 months or so, then goes up to a number based on how many pilots on seniority list, currently 21 or 22 a month.

If the last PP flows 6 months faster than the remaining pilot group flows 6 months faster. It helps out the end of the PPs and the rest of the pilot group more than those that were running the MEC at the time.

They effen gave away 50% of all new hires for an extra 4 guys a month but only for the protected pilots? YHGTBSM. WTF

We had to practically kill to get 50%, and they were honoring it, and even advertising the first few years about sending over 60% from Envoy. The MEC really did that?

Vote with your feet, or just suck it up until flow.

The grievance settlement did not give away anything. There has always been 3 groups of flows, the grievance settlement just increased the rate because company withheld pilots against the contract for a while.

It was never 50% for everyone forever. 50% was for the protected pilot group only and the company wasn't sending 50% of those anyway, hence the grievance.

Moving the PP group out faster helps everyone flow faster. We can talk all day about whether the extra 4 per month for the PP group was worth what we gave up but it was an improvement in flow for everyone.

I don't think they were ever honoring for the PPs, 824 yes but as soon as PPs came on they went to 25. The 60% was true but stretching the reality because they counted the group that flew over prior to any new hires at AA.

You were a status rep before you left eagle. I would like to ask that you stop union bashing. It may be time for you to move on. You did a lot while you were here but your comments recently are not helpful.

Truth is fact and fact is the truth, dont fight it, caress it.

Deleted, not helpful

I know how the silos work; I helped create them. Thanks.

Rest deleted, not helpful

I know how the silos work Dera, thanks..

Yes, that’s the argument in favor of that LOA.

Now explain to me how much faster everyone would have flowed if the 50% were required to be met... not to mention the inevitable offer to settle from the company by increasing the rates for subsequent groups...

Enough said, it’s done anyway. Should be hitting L10-11 guys soon.

It’s a great time to be a pilot.

We don’t fly the L1011. 😀

I take as humor but for those not in the know ( because you dont read your contract ) 10 11 is October 2011 when it those guys leave the end of the PPG.

You know just as well as anybody that the 50% language was incredibly soft and was unlikely to happen. This was negotiated during your time, wasn’t it? Or did you not join the MEC until after 15-01? I can’t remember exactly when your chicanery began, but you know, very well, why that 50% was dubious. What was the point of the 25 language, then? Walk me through the logic of that language being in there at all if the 50% was controlling. I’ll wait.

Check your PM.
Yes, the 50% was the intent. The 25 was like a shock absorber to let them adjust hiring/training to keep pace with AA demand and attrition. It wasn’t dubious, the 50% had already been arbitrated from an earlier flow agreement. If the intent was to send 25, they’d have written 25 and never mentioned 50% of all new hire positions.
There are other reasons the language is as it is, but that internal stuff doesn’t belong on the message board. Especially when litigation may be possible.

If it helps, I voted against the wording language for exactly the reasons that have come to fruition. I said then that they wouldn’t honor the 50% and would only send the 25. After much debate, and assurances from legal, the few of us were outvoted and that’s the language you got.

One reason why our legal team sucks. They should by now know how this company and the arbitrators work and prevent soft language like this even making it into the contract.

Agreed, but you need strong MEC reps that won't listen to the song & dance of legal explaining why it really isn't necessary. Same mistakes get repeated over and over by new reps. The few that take a stand somehow get targeted by the company repeatedly.

How many guys got the "scared straight" grand tour of ENY HQ for their social media postings, yet others were fired?

How many guys have been caught lying on their travel privileges and other various things, and simply been punished, or had travel suspended; yet others were fired?

How many times has the company violated their own progressive discipline process, and instead just fired somebody?

How many guys have been given step letters for things that used to be a C&C at most?

You are not dealing with ethical people running the place. As long as that continues, it isn't safe (career wise) to go bucking their cesspool system.

All more points towards having a profession, non-company pilot negotiator. You cant fire someone that you dont employ.

When was the last time a negotiator was fired? Maybe you should consider the fact that if the other side wants to play games, it doesn't matter who you have sitting across the table from them. The games will still be played.

For all the usual complaining about misallocated dues money, I'm a bit surprised it tends to be the same people unknowingly encouraging it. I guess it's just a skewed perception of our current landscape.

“Envoy management has recently expressed a desire to re-engage the Association in talks pertinent to the AIP and management's repudiation of that agreement. We have conveyed to Envoy management that we remain ready to implement the terms of the agreement.”

Latest union email, any interpretations?

Sounds like these people move like molasses in an igloo but things are less settled than many thought.

I interpret that as this:

Management: "Hey, union, about that AIP... we're ready to continue negotiations."

Union: "What's there to negotiate? We already have an AIP. Let us know when you're ready to make it happen."

outsider looking in, thats the way it reads to me as well.

Interpretation:

“Envoy management [VP of Ops] has recently expressed [put out propaganda in the form of a nothingburger letter] a desire [willingness to play union busting games] to re-engage [offer compensation inferior to the original AIP] the Association in talks pertinent to the AIP and management's repudiation [dAAd allegedly saying MQ management exceeded their authority] of that agreement. We have conveyed to Envoy management that we remain ready to implement the terms of the agreement [nothing is actually happening].”

Hold the Line!!!

Latest was that ALPA National says AIP is an enforceable contract, so it might be going to arbitration.

That would be amazing.

Would take months to actually get a ruling...

Very likely with back pay.

Would be 1,000% worth the wait.

Then why has the mec not stated they are going to arbitration over the aip.

Because this happened a day or two ago.

I heard they were in meeting with the company this week, perhaps management realizes the AIP is enforceable and wants to prevent arbitration/court?

I hope you’re right

He isn’t.

From
Duhaime's Law Dictionary

Agreement in Principle

Definition:
An agreement as to the terms of some future contract.
Related Terms: Contract



Also approval in principle.

An oxymoron as an agreement in principle is no agreement at all.

To bind the parties, a contract must be concluded in all its fundamental terms, with nothing left to negotiate. Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 9(1), "Contracts":

"It follows that, prima facie, there is no concluded contract where further agreement is expressly required...

"(I)f the parties have recahed an agreement in principle only, it may be that the proper inference is that they have not yet finished agreeing, for instance: where they make their agreement subject to details or subject to contract; or where so many important matters are left uncertain that their agreement is incomplete."

In Winsor Homes, Justice Gushe assessed the contractual significance of an approval in principle given to a development scheme:

"... it is merely an expression of intent and has no legal significance whatsoever."
.....
https://www.wisegeek.com/in-law-what...-principle.htm


An agreement in principle is an agreement that makes the major terms clear, laying the groundwork to make a contract. Agreements in principle are not legally enforceable as a general rule because they are not formal contracts, although sometimes they will be used in legal cases if there is a dispute. For people outside the legal field, this type of agreement can be confusing because it may make it seem as though everything is agreed when this is not actually the case.

When two parties are working together to reach an agreement, they often have a great deal of debate about the major points and terms, especially when the agreement surrounds a contentious issue. The process of nailing down the basics of the agreement leads to an agreement in principle, in which both parties arrive at a set of generally agreed-upon terms that will be used in the final contract. This is essentially the foundation of the contract, used when drafting the language because it includes everything the parties have negotiated.

A number of things can upset an agreement in principle. For example, when a bank reaches one with a customer and pre-approves a mortgage, the bank may later decide after additional investigation to change the terms, offering less money or a higher interest rate on the basis of newly learned information about the customer. Likewise, when diplomats reach this sort of agreement with their negotiating powers and take it home, government officials may reject or request modification to some of the terms.

The agreement is not legally binding because it has not been finalized. However, it indicates that the two parties have reached some level of consensus and that they intend to move forward with a contract. As a result, backing out of the agreement or radically changing the terms may be viewed as an activity in bad faith. For example, when a country reaches an agreement in principle with another and then reneges, it can make them look bad in the eyes of the international community.

It would have to be very unique to be enforceable. My guess, assuming that is true, is the company wants this behind them. Perhaps they see things we don’t and recruiting really is slowing down the road.

That or AA is sick of it as well.

LOL. Hear that from Ferris Bueller's brother's cousin's sister's boyfriend who saw him pass out at 31 flavors last night?

I doubt you know anything about what ALPA national is saying.

Thank you, Simone.

[QUOTE=Excargodog;2847634]He isn’t.

From
Duhaime's Law Dictionary

Agreement in Principle

Definition:
An agreement as to the terms of some future contract.
Related Terms: Contract



Also approval in principle.

An oxymoron as an agreement in principle is no agreement at all.

To bind the parties, a contract must be concluded in all its fundamental terms, with nothing left to negotiate. Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 9(1), "Contracts":

"It follows that, prima facie, there is no concluded contract where further agreement is expressly required...

"(I)f the parties have recahed an agreement in principle only, it may be that the proper inference is that they have not yet finished agreeing, for instance: where they make their agreement subject to details or subject to contract; or where so many important matters are left uncertain that their agreement is incomplete."

In Winsor Homes, Justice Gushe assessed the contractual significance of an approval in principle given to a development scheme:

"... it is merely an expression of intent and has no legal significance whatsoever."
.....
https://www.wisegeek.com/in-law-what...-principle.htm


An agreement in principle is an agreement that makes the major terms clear, laying the groundwork to make a contract. Agreements in principle are not legally enforceable as a general rule because they are not formal contracts, although sometimes they will be used in legal cases if there is a dispute. For people outside the legal field, this type of agreement can be confusing because it may make it seem as though everything is agreed when this is not actually the case.

When two parties are working together to reach an agreement, they often have a great deal of debate about the major points and terms, especially when the agreement surrounds a contentious issue. The process of nailing down the basics of the agreement leads to an agreement in principle, in which both parties arrive at a set of generally agreed-upon terms that will be used in the final contract. This is essentially the foundation of the contract, used when drafting the language because it includes everything the parties have negotiated.

A number of things can upset an agreement in principle. For example, when a bank reaches one with a customer and pre-approves a mortgage, the bank may later decide after additional investigation to change the terms, offering less money or a higher interest rate on the basis of newly learned information about the customer. Likewise, when diplomats reach this sort of agreement with their negotiating powers and take it home, government officials may reject or request modification to some of the terms.

The agreement is not legally binding because it has not been finalized. However, it indicates that the two parties have reached some level of consensus and that they intend to move forward with a contract. As a result, backing out of the agreement or radically changing the terms may be viewed as an activity in bad faith. For example, when a country reaches an agreement in principle with another and then reneges, it can make them look bad in the eyes of the international community.[/QUOTE

Inserting facts in to the discussion, you can't do that! :D