|
Sounds like it’s time for other strike-prone industries to purchase air carrier certificates.
|
Originally Posted by Cujo665
(Post 3115863)
This is partially correct. That flow was the result of a grievance arbitration. There was no pilot vote. The subsequent ones were all done by pilot votes as contract amendments.
|
No, it was voted on. The then mec was bragging about the flow and was saying the change in transfer was industry standard. Bull the and now everyone understand never give anything up for something in the very far out future.
|
Originally Posted by But seriously
(Post 3115931)
Didn’t we have to vote to change the scope clause to allow for that agreement? It’s possible my memory is a little fuzzy. It was a long time ago. Maybe I’m remembering some MEC Comm saying that the feedback was overwhelmingly positive instead of an actual vote.
It was done in two parts. The grievance settlement/flow program and a Scope LOA. The scope LOA did have a pilot vote. July 19, 2011 Fellow American Eagle pilots: On January 26, 2011, the MEC filed a grievance over AMR’s plan to transfer the ownership of Eagle’s aircraft to AMR in anticipation of the possible divestiture of American Eagle from AMR. AMR’s stated desire was to own these aircraft for a number of reasons, not the least of which was to facilitate the transfer of Eagle’s flight operations to other feed operators in order to, “diversify their feed.” If we were to win this grievance, it would not stop the transfer of ownership of Eagle’s aircraft to AA, nor would it stop the transfer of Eagle’s flight operations to other feed operators. What it would require is that pursuant to Section 1 of our collective bargaining agreement, Eagle pilots and the Eagle contract would have to transfer with aircraft to the other feed operator. For example, if AA were to outsource some of Eagle’s current flying to Mesa Airlines, the number of Eagle pilots required to staff those aircraft and contract would go with the aircraft to Mesa Airlines and be employed at that carrier with a five year window during which they could elect to transfer back to Eagle. In the end, though, the flying would leave American Eagle. This grievance was about pilot jobs, not the transfer of assets. Today, we settled this grievance for an option the MEC believes to be better than our original contract provisions. The settlement is as follows: 1. Every American Eagle pilot who is on the American Eagle pilot seniority list as of October 11, 2011 will be offered a job as an American Airlines pilot in the future. 2. American Eagle pilots hired under this settlement agreement will not be subjected to a pre- employment interview or pre-employment medical examination prior to transferring to American Airlines. 3. American Eagle pilots will be offered a minimum of 35% of every American Airlines new-hire class. In the event that 35% of American Airlines’ new hire class is greater than 25 pilots per month, American Eagle will be required to release at least 25 Eagle pilots per month. 4. If American Eagle loses flying and such loss results in a furlough, American Airlines will increase the percentage of Eagle pilots in their new-hire classes to a minimum of 50%. The meter above will continue to apply. 5. If American Eagle loses flying and such loss might result in a furlough, American Airlines will also attempt to negotiate preferential interviews for American Eagle pilots at the carrier who has successfully bid for the flying that Eagle is losing. 6. This settlement does not impact the existing rights of American Eagle flow-through pilots who currently possess American Airlines pilot seniority numbers, or the rights of the 824 pilot positions awarded as remedy by Arbitrator Nicolau. Those provisions are in place and will remain effective without regard to this settlement agreement. 7. American Eagle has agreed to clarifying contract language regarding the scope of work that American Eagle pilots perform in the event of a divestiture. This grievance settlement agreement is divided into three documents. The first document is a three-party agreement between American Airlines, American Eagle Airlines, and ALPA delineating the process by which American Eagle pilots are offered pilot jobs at American Airlines. The second document is a two- party agreement between American Eagle Airlines and ALPA delineating the process that Eagle will utilize to transfer pilots to American Airlines. This document also describes the withdrawal of this grievance as a result of this settlement. These first two documents are available on the ALPA-Eagle website and ARE NOW EFFECTIVE. The third document is the new scope language that is proposed to take effect in the event of a divestiture of American Eagle from AMR. This language is a change to our collective bargaining agreement and is contingent on the divestiture of American Eagle. Pursuant to a resolution ratified by the MEC, this letter requires pilot ratification in order to be effective. Therefore, we have posted this draft Scope Letter of Agreement on the ALPA-Eagle website and will begin the information process at the end of this week. A pilot vote will be scheduled shortly and more information will follow in this Friday’s hotline. Although this settlement is a major step forward in securing job progression and security for every American Eagle pilot, we remain in unstable and quickly changing times. The MEC continues to expect that the AMR Board of Directors will be considering the potential divestiture of American Eagle from AMR at this week’s Board meeting and an announcement on Eagle’s future ownership could be made as early as tomorrow. We will have much more information for you on this settlement and Eagle’s possible divestiture following the conclusion of AMR’s Board meeting this week. Your Pilot-to-Pilot representatives have been briefed on this settlement and are in possession of an FAQ regarding the settlement. In addition, we have created a new Eagle ALPA Facebook page to provide information to you in a timely manner. Our communications volunteers are monitoring this site in order to address your concerns. Be sure to “Like Eagle ALPA” on Facebook so that you will receive our status updates. My thanks to all those who worked so diligently to bring this grievance settlement to completion. That includes our grievance and contract compliance volunteers, legal staff, negotiating committee volunteers and also representatives from American Airlines and American Eagle who worked late nights and early mornings over the past six days to move this agreement from concepts to specific language. Please stay tuned for further updates, including this Friday’s hotline regarding the pilot ratification process for our draft Scope Letter of Agreement. Please reach out to your local representatives with questions. Fraternally, Tony Gutierrez MEC Chairman |
Originally Posted by buddies8
(Post 3116126)
No, it was voted on. The then mec was bragging about the flow and was saying the change in transfer was industry standard. Bull the and now everyone understand never give anything up for something in the very far out future.
Scope LOA - was done by pilot vote I agree, the scope change was a mistake. |
Thanks for the correction. An important item in our contract was decided by 8.
|
Originally Posted by buddies8
(Post 3116832)
Thanks for the correction. An important item in our contract was decided by 8.
|
Originally Posted by MEGAFUPM
(Post 3117046)
And caving on numerous QOL improvements for 5 flows a month for the smallest group of pilots at Eaglevoy, when we, at the soonest won't flow anyone for 3-4 years, was decided by 6.
The ALPA and MEC argument has always been that if they're speaking with the company and something gets thrown in, that if the company had time to reflect upon, they would not do... if we had to wait for a pilot vote we'd never get those things. Basically it allows the chairman to take something that is a no brainer win. The problem at Envoy is it gets used way too much. By the time they get done doing one little LOA at a time, you end up with an entire CBA rewrite. Further, it relies on clear language that the lawyers then mess up. The policy manual used to say (it may still I don't have a copy) that any significant change to compensation had to be a pilot vote. Well, when you try to argue with the MEC that this LOA or that LOA must go to a pilot vote... the lawyers quickly point out that the MEC decides what "significant" means.... then they point out that the MEC decides what "compensation" means.... Having worked under both systems now, I prefer the one that requires a full pilot vote for all CBA changes. They still can still do one time LOA's, but what gets waived is the 10-30 day posting period, the pilot vote still happens. The one time when Envoy did screw up and the MEC should have taken the grab and run, they insisted upon a pilot vote, and the company smartened up and pulled the offer. Now, I know many of the current MEC members and officers and I think you've got a really good crew in there for the most part. Even the very few I disagree with provide valuable discussion and alternate viewpoints. I do think they should revisit that policy though. |
Originally Posted by Cujo665
(Post 3117194)
Exactly why I proposed tightening the policy manual to require a pilot vote much more often. I'm at a Teamsters shop and I can tell you NOTHING changes our CBA without a pilot vote.
The ALPA and MEC argument has always been that if they're speaking with the company and something gets thrown in, that if the company had time to reflect upon, they would not do... if we had to wait for a pilot vote we'd never get those things. Basically it allows the chairman to take something that is a no brainer win. The problem at Envoy is it gets used way too much. By the time they get done doing one little LOA at a time, you end up with an entire CBA rewrite. Further, it relies on clear language that the lawyers then mess up. The policy manual used to say (it may still I don't have a copy) that any significant change to compensation had to be a pilot vote. Well, when you try to argue with the MEC that this LOA or that LOA must go to a pilot vote... the lawyers quickly point out that the MEC decides what "significant" means.... then they point out that the MEC decides what "compensation" means.... Having worked under both systems now, I prefer the one that requires a full pilot vote for all CBA changes. They still can still do one time LOA's, but what gets waived is the 10-30 day posting period, the pilot vote still happens. The one time when Envoy did screw up and the MEC should have taken the grab and run, they insisted upon a pilot vote, and the company smartened up and pulled the offer. Now, I know many of the current MEC members and officers and I think you've got a really good crew in there for the most part. Even the very few I disagree with provide valuable discussion and alternate viewpoints. I do think they should revisit that policy though. In regards to the current MEC, I would also agree they are a good group, but we have to think long term and what's best for the pilot group going forward. |
|
Originally Posted by Chato
(Post 3117724)
|
Originally Posted by Chato
(Post 3117724)
|
Originally Posted by MqWhistleblower
(Post 3117734)
That guy is a douchebag from PDT. Btw, I haven’t seen Swayne’s videos in a hot minute. Is he not drinking the kool aid anymore?
|
Originally Posted by MqWhistleblower
(Post 3117734)
That guy is a douchebag from PDT. Btw, I haven’t seen Swayne’s videos in a hot minute. Is he not drinking the kool aid anymore?
|
Originally Posted by Chato
(Post 3117724)
|
Originally Posted by Chato
(Post 3117778)
This guy got tons of pics in the plane, ramp etc in full uniform, I thought Swayne was the only one allowed to do this.
|
Originally Posted by pitchattitude
(Post 3117840)
Swayne is the only one allowed at ENVOY. Looks like all of the WOs have a poster child.
PSA has moon man |
Originally Posted by Freighthotdog
(Post 3117856)
PSA has moon man
|
Originally Posted by ClappedOut145
(Post 3117801)
Nah, he’s a PDT golden child and has carte blanche when it comes to his social media.
|
Originally Posted by CADR
(Post 3117863)
Oh yeah both pilot drew and fly with garrett have free rein at PDT. I especially like how they post photos and videos in full uniform while advertising for products.
Hair products in uniform.... |
Looks like some junior guys at Piedmont are hoping for concessions on their forum
|
Originally Posted by CADR
(Post 3117863)
Oh yeah both pilot drew and fly with garrett have free rein at PDT. I especially like how they post photos and videos in full uniform while advertising for products.
|
Well someone should explain that giving concessions before probable filing of bankruptcy just means your giving twice at the office. Oh and you wont stop any furloughs, they are coming and will happen, it's the way of doing business. Dont have stomach for such things then time to find another profession, this happens every 10 years.
socialism does not work here nor p.c.. |
Originally Posted by boxthrower
(Post 3118008)
Looks like some junior guys at Piedmont are hoping for concessions on their forum
They haven't realized just yet how broke ($) they already are. Taking concessions to fly a jet will pretty much put them firmly in the lower income category. (Most of them were already there to begin with). There comes a point where you might as well go work at McDonald’s. |
Originally Posted by boxthrower
(Post 3118008)
Looks like some junior guys at Piedmont are hoping for concessions on their forum
|
Originally Posted by Cyio
(Post 3118147)
Great, PSA steps up and stands strong only to get stabbed in the back by Piedmont. You couldn't make this up if you tried.
No concessions are happening at Piedmont. It's all just hot air from people at the bottom that got served a furlough notice. |
These same people did not complain when they were getting bonuses while the rest got swat.
|
This was funny when Compass did it 3 years ago. Why is the Envoy pilot group still so desperate to emulate CP? :confused:
|
Originally Posted by CADR
(Post 3118158)
No concessions are happening at Piedmont. It's all just hot air from people at the bottom that got served a furlough notice.
|
Originally Posted by FollowMe
(Post 3118226)
This was funny when Compass did it 3 years ago. Why is the Envoy pilot group still so desperate to emulate CP? :confused:
|
While we’re talking about concessions and, the bs “ we’re all in this together”
https://onemileatatime.com/doug-parker-compensation/ |
Originally Posted by MqWhistleblower
(Post 3118632)
While we’re talking about concessions and, the bs “ we’re all in this together”
https://onemileatatime.com/doug-parker-compensation/ |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:27 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands