Originally Posted by Nightflyer (Post 3375774)

If they MEC wants to show some resolve, they can give the 7 day notice for the jumpseat MOU.

The company will have a difficult time operating without it, and we might be able to get something back for it.

Originally Posted by FXLAX (Post 3375858)

Overall, I wasn't as pessimistic as you are.

From my memory, they talked about getting management to back off of their reverse 4a2b proposal. NC was able to reduce expense report issues by reducing the amount of receipts required and requiring a timeframe to fix issues before payroll deduction. Hours of service is down to one open item. If I guessed, it probably deals with getting more realistic rest opportunities. Deadheading still has substantial differences with three open items still remaining, one of them being a large item. As for scope, they received no counter. NC has proposed some belly freight language and trying to make it more expensive for management to wet lease. Retirement, as you said, bankruptcy era, from before current language that has enhancements such as cap over cap and tax advantaged health accounts. Also, management asked to renegotiate covid MOUs so NC is asking to make travel bank changes permanent. Wet lease payments being calculated. And no more handshake deals for instructors. Oh and TPE hotel still sucks. The hotel is mandated by government and other airlines have to stay there as well. But should see improvements in meals. That's what I remember.

Originally Posted by Noworkallplay (Post 3375886)

I remember the same as you. This was his first post and he definitely formulated a different view compared to what I heard. The money fight will happen in the next two months once none large money items are TAd. This is the time we need the entire pilot group to fly the contract. Currently we just a few and numerous acting as subcontractors.

The Chairman also said clearly draft/ava is our choice and the union will defend all pilots who choose not to partake.

Originally Posted by Noworkallplay (Post 3375803)

That is a false statement. Read business necessity jumpseat language in the CBA. They used this in HKG prior to the travel MOU. They just simply made everyone a reserve and built the trips outside the bidpack per the CBA. They then just assigned them to everyone who was on reserve. Problem solved. In the mean time all pilots in HKG lost the ability to bid a line and the days they wanted to work. A lot of the gains from the travel MOU would also be lost such as 100% bank value and rental car ability.

Let’s start with getting everybody just flying the contract. That alone would get them to the bargaining table. This is a simple game of pressure and we are losing because of pilot greed.

Originally Posted by Sunnysky (Post 3376203)

That sounds pretty pessimistic and about in line with what I heard. Where is the difference? That's a LOT of open items - especially in big sections - and 3 months to go in the protocol agreement.

Originally Posted by Nightflyer (Post 3375474)

Perhaps if the NC were not trying to sell us the pancake plan, more pilots would support them.

Perhaps if the NC were honest about what their goals are with respect to how to improve the retirement section, more would support them.

When I am fed BS surveys, and being told what we are bargaining for is a "secret", I am reminded of the crap sandwich they sold us in 2015.

I know there are many on the property that were not here in 2015, but we need to do our due diligence, and not necessarily believe what our union tells us.

It is pretty sad when you can't trust your own union, but that is what is going on here.

The surest way to get what we want is to vote down the first TA if it does not meet our goals. That would show our resolve.

If it passes again at 57 percent, we have lost.

In the past, the company has dragged out negotiations for two years past the amendable date of every contract. I don't think that will work out as well for them this time, as it gives more time for others to get a contract, and more time for inflation to affect us, which means we will demand more.

Mark my words, I want a good contract, but the NC is not doing the crew force any favors by the way they are acting.

I had a new guy tell me the 3200 new hires since the last contract would dictate the terms of our retirement to the old guys.

This, after we gave up a lot to keep one retirement in 2015, after we could have thrown them under the bus.

You want to split the crew force, just give the new hires a better deal than the old guys, and you will have infighting like you wouldn't believe.

The union needs to improve retirement for all of us, not just enough of us to get to 51%.

I am prepared to vote no. I will have to be convinced to vote yes.

I shouldn't have to worry about "my" union lying to me, but I am, and I have a huge problem with that.

Originally Posted by Merle Haggard (Post 3348201)

The fact that I don't see these forums filled with people upset about what went on in the MD training office does not give me a warm fuzzy about the greater issues.

Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy (Post 3376383)

What happened?

Originally Posted by threeighteen (Post 3376389)

if you’re a fedex alpa member you already know. If you’re not a fedex alpa member you don’t need to know.