Let the no guys speak!
09-17-2015, 09:02 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,191
Originally Posted by skypig
You guys have to read the council 22 Block 7 reps latest missive....
Authentic Western Gibberish.
Here's his opening paragraph:
"I read somewhere once that the most vexing thing about truth is the inescapable logic behind words and actions. Truth isn’t hard to accept when we’re on the side of right. But when we’re struggling or short on resources and time, truths are akin to the long arm of the law in the Old West. I’ve also heard it said that some people never let facts get in the way of a good argument."
*** does that mean? Logic, Truth, short on resources and time? Really?
Worse yet, here's the last sentence of his barely literate closing paragraph..the summary, in conventional essay writing...
"I have heard it said a few times in my life that pigs get fed and hogs get slaughtered."
I'm starting to get tired of these guys referring to anyone who doesn't like this TA as Hogs who will get slaughtered...what vegetable came up with that comparison? Versus Pigs being fed? What an insult...
Our own reps referring to us as pigs and hogs....I guess my rep speaks for me...not...
He goes on to whine about being stunned about what he's read etc etc...you gotta read it all you Pigs and hogs
Fraternally
Authentic Western Gibberish.
Here's his opening paragraph:
"I read somewhere once that the most vexing thing about truth is the inescapable logic behind words and actions. Truth isn’t hard to accept when we’re on the side of right. But when we’re struggling or short on resources and time, truths are akin to the long arm of the law in the Old West. I’ve also heard it said that some people never let facts get in the way of a good argument."
*** does that mean? Logic, Truth, short on resources and time? Really?
Worse yet, here's the last sentence of his barely literate closing paragraph..the summary, in conventional essay writing...
"I have heard it said a few times in my life that pigs get fed and hogs get slaughtered."
I'm starting to get tired of these guys referring to anyone who doesn't like this TA as Hogs who will get slaughtered...what vegetable came up with that comparison? Versus Pigs being fed? What an insult...
Our own reps referring to us as pigs and hogs....I guess my rep speaks for me...not...
He goes on to whine about being stunned about what he's read etc etc...you gotta read it all you Pigs and hogs
Fraternally
Gotta love it.
09-18-2015, 02:42 AM
#23
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 798
Talking to a friend tonight. His flying partner overheard and was surprised to hear that there are changes to the VTO build in the TA. He bids them. He was quite interested in the R day provisions.
We need to educate those around us.
Although we may be considered the "12 angry men" on APC, we are also the "12 educated men". I would submit that, on the whole,most of those on this forum have spent more time than the average crewmember studying this TA. Ask some questions, you'll be shocked at how little your fellow voters know. It's an awful lot like the general public in a regular political election.
Educate, educate, educate. People are about to vote with no clue what's in this TA.
PIPE
We need to educate those around us.
Although we may be considered the "12 angry men" on APC, we are also the "12 educated men". I would submit that, on the whole,most of those on this forum have spent more time than the average crewmember studying this TA. Ask some questions, you'll be shocked at how little your fellow voters know. It's an awful lot like the general public in a regular political election.
Educate, educate, educate. People are about to vote with no clue what's in this TA.
PIPE
09-18-2015, 04:32 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,051
Originally Posted by pipe
Talking to a friend tonight. His flying partner overheard and was surprised to hear that there are changes to the VTO build in the TA. He bids them. He was quite interested in the R day provisions.
We need to educate those around us.
Although we may be considered the "12 angry men" on APC, we are also the "12 educated men". I would submit that, on the whole,most of those on this forum have spent more time than the average crewmember studying this TA. Ask some questions, you'll be shocked at how little your fellow voters know. It's an awful lot like the general public in a regular political election.
Educate, educate, educate. People are about to vote with no clue what's in this TA.
PIPE
We need to educate those around us.
Although we may be considered the "12 angry men" on APC, we are also the "12 educated men". I would submit that, on the whole,most of those on this forum have spent more time than the average crewmember studying this TA. Ask some questions, you'll be shocked at how little your fellow voters know. It's an awful lot like the general public in a regular political election.
Educate, educate, educate. People are about to vote with no clue what's in this TA.
PIPE
I've talked with a few who are basing this HUGE decision, which will affect the next 10 years of their life, on the road shows and videos only
. Now, going to a roadshow and watching the videos might be good supplement, but there is nothing like reading the TA, with all its grey language, its additions to PBS (yes, let's admit it, it's here and growing), and its undefined and unintended consequences. Had it not been for APC, I wouldn't have learned of many of these issues. My sincere thanks to the 12+ educated, albeit sometimes angry, men and women of APC!
09-18-2015, 07:12 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,756
Originally Posted by pipe
Talking to a friend tonight. His flying partner overheard and was surprised to hear that there are changes to the VTO build in the TA. He bids them. He was quite interested in the R day provisions.
Educate, educate, educate. People are about to vote with no clue what's in this TA.
PIPE
Educate, educate, educate. People are about to vote with no clue what's in this TA.
PIPE
09-18-2015, 07:36 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,756
When I look at the Q and A section about the TA, section 25, it looks like someone asked the question:
"Q: Is it correct according to Sec. 25.D.2.d., a secondary line could have a combination of trips, base simulator support events, and reserve blocks no matter what was on the pilot's "preference" list since by the TA, these events can be combined on any secondary line?
A: A pilot may preference trips, base simulator support or R-day blocks in his Secondary line construction worksheet request. If not specifically preferenced, the pilot cannot be assigned a base simulator support event (Section 25.D.2.d.iv. on p. 355). If during the processing of the secondary lines, a pilot who has not preferenced R-day blocks, but due to his seniority there are no longer enough trips to build a line, he may be assigned R-days. This is the same as the current CBA (see current Section 25.D.2.d.) That current language also provides that if a pilot's line can be built with all trips, then that line will contain all trips. That language has been deleted to allow a pilot to preference what he actually wants and increase his chance of getting requested days off. The pilot can now preference a mixed line, all trips, or all reserve days, unlike today."
Do they not understand that by removing the restriction that trips must be assigned first, that they have left it wide open? That they could have changed the language to say that voluntary reserve blocks will be assigned first, then from the bottom up? Don't we all know what happens when you leave open ended language in a contract, and just assume that there will be no changes? Why would they assume that, "but due to his seniority there are no longer enough trips to build a line, he may be assigned R-days", when that is not in the TA? And now there will be far more R days available for assignment, or "preferencing".
Can someone go online to the Q and A section and ask them that? My computer is not allowing me to log on and ask a question to that site.
"Q: Is it correct according to Sec. 25.D.2.d., a secondary line could have a combination of trips, base simulator support events, and reserve blocks no matter what was on the pilot's "preference" list since by the TA, these events can be combined on any secondary line?
A: A pilot may preference trips, base simulator support or R-day blocks in his Secondary line construction worksheet request. If not specifically preferenced, the pilot cannot be assigned a base simulator support event (Section 25.D.2.d.iv. on p. 355). If during the processing of the secondary lines, a pilot who has not preferenced R-day blocks, but due to his seniority there are no longer enough trips to build a line, he may be assigned R-days. This is the same as the current CBA (see current Section 25.D.2.d.) That current language also provides that if a pilot's line can be built with all trips, then that line will contain all trips. That language has been deleted to allow a pilot to preference what he actually wants and increase his chance of getting requested days off. The pilot can now preference a mixed line, all trips, or all reserve days, unlike today."
Do they not understand that by removing the restriction that trips must be assigned first, that they have left it wide open? That they could have changed the language to say that voluntary reserve blocks will be assigned first, then from the bottom up? Don't we all know what happens when you leave open ended language in a contract, and just assume that there will be no changes? Why would they assume that, "but due to his seniority there are no longer enough trips to build a line, he may be assigned R-days", when that is not in the TA? And now there will be far more R days available for assignment, or "preferencing".
Can someone go online to the Q and A section and ask them that? My computer is not allowing me to log on and ask a question to that site.
09-18-2015, 07:57 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: B777 FO FDX, C130 ANG
Posts: 538
Originally Posted by pipe
Talking to a friend tonight. His flying partner overheard and was surprised to hear that there are changes to the VTO build in the TA. He bids them. He was quite interested in the R day provisions.
We need to educate those around us.
Although we may be considered the "12 angry men" on APC, we are also the "12 educated men". I would submit that, on the whole,most of those on this forum have spent more time than the average crewmember studying this TA. Ask some questions, you'll be shocked at how little your fellow voters know. It's an awful lot like the general public in a regular political election.
Educate, educate, educate. People are about to vote with no clue what's in this TA.
PIPE
We need to educate those around us.
Although we may be considered the "12 angry men" on APC, we are also the "12 educated men". I would submit that, on the whole,most of those on this forum have spent more time than the average crewmember studying this TA. Ask some questions, you'll be shocked at how little your fellow voters know. It's an awful lot like the general public in a regular political election.
Educate, educate, educate. People are about to vote with no clue what's in this TA.
PIPE
I already know they can add reserve blocks to my VTO line now because I end up with them all the time so I'm not following the argument. The VTO process under the new TA looks as though it will have better transparency than we have now (which is none). 80% of planned RDays have to be built into actual reserve lines as per the new TA to begin with. Why would the company want to add reserve blocks to more VTO lines than they have to when they have trips that need to be filled? Doing that would require a lot more staffing of pilots? The company doesn't like to pay people to stay at home.
I guess I just don't see the black helicopter flying around; there's way more good in this TA than bad as I see it.
09-18-2015, 08:03 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2012
Posts: 711
Originally Posted by Flaps50
Please educate us what's so bad about the proposed VTO process vs. what we have now, I seriously want to know since I get VTO lines 95% of the time.
I already know they can add reserve blocks to my VTO line now because I end up with them all the time so I'm not following the argument. The VTO process under the new TA looks as though it will have better transparency than we have now (which is none). 80% of planned RDays have to be built into actual reserve lines as per the new TA to begin with. Why would the company want to add reserve blocks to more VTO lines than they have to when they have trips that need to be filled? Doing that would require a lot more staffing of pilots? The company doesn't like to pay people to stay at home.
I guess I just don't see the black helicopter flying around; there's way more good in this TA than bad as I see it.
I already know they can add reserve blocks to my VTO line now because I end up with them all the time so I'm not following the argument. The VTO process under the new TA looks as though it will have better transparency than we have now (which is none). 80% of planned RDays have to be built into actual reserve lines as per the new TA to begin with. Why would the company want to add reserve blocks to more VTO lines than they have to when they have trips that need to be filled? Doing that would require a lot more staffing of pilots? The company doesn't like to pay people to stay at home.
I guess I just don't see the black helicopter flying around; there's way more good in this TA than bad as I see it.
Second, the number 1 VTO guy could request trips and the global solution could drop in 2 days of reserve as the best global fit.
Third, SLRWG is blessed by ratification of TA and the whole process of sourcing a new PBS system, setting the parameters, and any other changes comes without further vote of the pilots. Most airlines spell out in great detail the PBS system. We're voting to approve a "black box" that simply has to be approved by MEC Chairman.
Fourth, final arbiter of new system will be the company...not even arbitration. How many disputed pairings have been upheld by the company...I can't remember any. How many disputes about the secondary line system will be upheld by the company in favor of the pilots over the next 6-10 years?
09-18-2015, 08:10 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: 777 Captain in Training
Posts: 1,457
Originally Posted by Raptor
Not a black helicopter, but with the reduction of 20% of the reserve lines, this means, that there will be more secondary lines than we have now. More secondary = more PBS (ack we have a 1st gen PBS now) = efficiency gain for company...but where is the compensation gain for us when we negotiate them efficiencies?
Second, the number 1 VTO guy could request trips and the global solution could drop in 2 days of reserve as the best global fit.
Third, SLRWG is blessed by ratification of TA and the whole process of sourcing a new PBS system, setting the parameters, and any other changes comes without further vote of the pilots. Most airlines spell out in great detail the PBS system. We're voting to approve a "black box" that simply has to be approved by MEC Chairman.
Fourth, final arbiter of new system will be the company...not even arbitration. How many disputed pairings have been upheld by the company...I can't remember any. How many disputes about the secondary line system will be upheld by the company in favor of the pilots over the next 6-10 years?
Second, the number 1 VTO guy could request trips and the global solution could drop in 2 days of reserve as the best global fit.
Third, SLRWG is blessed by ratification of TA and the whole process of sourcing a new PBS system, setting the parameters, and any other changes comes without further vote of the pilots. Most airlines spell out in great detail the PBS system. We're voting to approve a "black box" that simply has to be approved by MEC Chairman.
Fourth, final arbiter of new system will be the company...not even arbitration. How many disputed pairings have been upheld by the company...I can't remember any. How many disputes about the secondary line system will be upheld by the company in favor of the pilots over the next 6-10 years?
B. Duties of the SLR Working Group.
The SLRWG shall be responsible for the development, implementation, and initial oversight and administration of the SLR as set forth in this LOA....If the Association representatives on the SLRWG disagree with the recommendation, the Association may appeal the matter to the Senior Vice President, Flight Operations who will render a final decision after meeting with the Association MEC Chairman or his designee....The Implementation Period shall commence upon the final acceptance of and transition to the SLR and shall continue for 12 months thereafter.
09-18-2015, 08:16 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: B777 FO FDX, C130 ANG
Posts: 538
Originally Posted by Raptor
Not a black helicopter, but with the reduction of 20% of the reserve lines, this means, that there will be more secondary lines than we have now. More secondary = more PBS (ack we have a 1st gen PBS now) = efficiency gain for company...but where is the compensation gain for us when we negotiate them efficiencies?
Second, the number 1 VTO guy could request trips and the global solution could drop in 2 days of reserve as the best global fit.
Third, SLRWG is blessed by ratification of TA and the whole process of sourcing a new PBS system, setting the parameters, and any other changes comes without further vote of the pilots. Most airlines spell out in great detail the PBS system. We're voting to approve a "black box" that simply has to be approved by MEC Chairman.
Fourth, final arbiter of new system will be the company...not even arbitration. How many disputed pairings have been upheld by the company...I can't remember any. How many disputes about the secondary line system will be upheld by the company in favor of the pilots over the next 6-10 years?
Second, the number 1 VTO guy could request trips and the global solution could drop in 2 days of reserve as the best global fit.
Third, SLRWG is blessed by ratification of TA and the whole process of sourcing a new PBS system, setting the parameters, and any other changes comes without further vote of the pilots. Most airlines spell out in great detail the PBS system. We're voting to approve a "black box" that simply has to be approved by MEC Chairman.
Fourth, final arbiter of new system will be the company...not even arbitration. How many disputed pairings have been upheld by the company...I can't remember any. How many disputes about the secondary line system will be upheld by the company in favor of the pilots over the next 6-10 years?
Here's the exact current book verbiage - fact 1: "d. If a secondary line cannot reasonably be constructed entirely of trips, it may be constructed of trips and reserve days (R-days). If a secondary line cannot be constructed of trips and R-days, it shall be constructed as a reserve line."
Take the emotion out of it...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
