|
That’s great and all, but what about the 5800 that still have to work under the rest of the contract sections, most of which weren’t even addressed in TA1 openers, that are by far industry worst? Industry worst seat lock language, system bid frequency, lack of true min day, no hotels for recurrent/ ITU, unlimited operational emergency usage by the company to extend to FARs, etc, etc.
What is troubling for me is that the conversation is, and always will be about retirement. It’ll never be about making this a good place to work while we’re actually doing it, and that’s troubling. |
Originally Posted by jackryan
(Post 3704750)
What is troubling for me is that the conversation is, and always will be about retirement. It’ll never be about making this a good place to work while we’re actually doing it, and that’s troubling. |
Originally Posted by NotMrNiceGuy
(Post 3704818)
Until the A-plan is tied to 401(k) compensation limits, that will continue to be the case. One of the big issues with the traditional A-Plan.
|
Originally Posted by jackryan
(Post 3704750)
... the rest of the contract sections, most of which weren’t even addressed in TA1 openers, that are by far industry worst? Industry worst seat lock language, system bid frequency, lack of true min day, no hotels for recurrent/ ITU, unlimited operational emergency usage by the company to extend to FARs, etc, etc...
First order of business for new NC is climbing out of the hole that PM dug us into by playing "fast and loose" (his words) with all the initially TA'd sections and saying Yes to the company for SMU, saying Yes to them for R16, and saying Yes for BLG required for AVA/VLT/DRF and Selling VAC. If you think a new NC should be leading us to TA2, make sure to explicitly state it in the survey, which has no question directly asking the obvious: should the NC be replaced for TA2? Not even in one of those mulitiple annoying "rank in order of importance the next 20 answers, and make them add up to 100". Survey brought to you by: the same guys who brought you TA1 and seem intent on bringing you TA2 before there is time to reorganize with new leadership. |
Originally Posted by Yuko
(Post 3704656)
There is funny rumor going around that we will attempt to do only 3 things to squeeze out a TA1.5 before 31 Dec 2023. The 3 things are increase pay rates, increase retro and soften scope language. I feel confident that if our strategy resembles this funny rumor there will be enough NOs waiting again.
You know what is not funny, the 300 sisters and brothers that in unity our ALPA leadership did not take care of with a retirement improvement. The choices we make reflect what we value. TA1.0 said if you are close to retirement during section 6 there is a high chance that you will receive a value of zero. There is no business speak that sets this right. As this number grows I hope you will realize this as an inadequacy of TA1.0. You can’t preach unity to us youngsters when we will discard so many and treat it as a suitable outcome. We talked about being 700 overmanned and furloughs to be had. Here is a better number to discuss: 300 turns 500 next year! Until then don’t forget to fill out your surveys and leave some room for no pilot left behind. This is a negotiation not a holdup. To the 300 retirees (and those about to join their ranks), you can put your hands down. Let’s GO! |
Originally Posted by DaRaiders
(Post 3704927)
Wait. ”Soften” scope? As in; make it easier for the company to outsource?
|
Originally Posted by jackryan
(Post 3704750)
That’s great and all, but what about the 5800 that still have to work under the rest of the contract sections, most of which weren’t even addressed in TA1 openers, that are by far industry worst? Industry worst seat lock language, system bid frequency, lack of true min day, no hotels for recurrent/ ITU, unlimited operational emergency usage by the company to extend to FARs, etc, etc.
What is troubling for me is that the conversation is, and always will be about retirement. It’ll never be about making this a good place to work while we’re actually doing it, and that’s troubling. I have 3-4 contracts left here and want this place improved as well. The thread is called “No One Left Behind”. We are going in the same direction. Let’s GO! |
Originally Posted by jackryan
(Post 3704750)
unlimited operational emergency usage by the company to extend to FARs, etc, etc.
|
Originally Posted by CloudSailor
(Post 3704913)
Exactly, we cannot allow this CBA to become worse in any of these sections where we are already among industry worst. We need to protect our junior flying too, and improve it.
First order of business for new NC is climbing out of the hole that PM dug us into by playing "fast and loose" (his words) with all the initially TA'd sections and saying Yes to the company for SMU, saying Yes to them for R16, and saying Yes for BLG required for AVA/VLT/DRF and Selling VAC. If you think a new NC should be leading us to TA2, make sure to explicitly state it in the survey, which has no question directly asking the obvious: should the NC be replaced for TA2? Not even in one of those mulitiple annoying "rank in order of importance the next 20 answers, and make them add up to 100". Survey brought to you by: the same guys who brought you TA1 and seem intent on bringing you TA2 before there is time to reorganize with new leadership. PM played "fast and loose" - in his words - please expand about this statement. He said "yes" to R16? We proposed the changes in long call reserve - Company would have loved to keep R24 with base hotel stby like it is - they don't want to change it, R16 was the compromise. There were changes to DFT? Did you even read the TA? |
Originally Posted by DaRaiders
(Post 3704927)
Wait. ”Soften” scope? As in; make it easier for the company to outsource?
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:04 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands