Recall of LEC officers and MEC
02-24-2021, 02:42 PM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Posts: 453
Originally Posted by AYLflyer
The idea of a recall with a 54% result is idiotic. Not just that, but this is the worst time to split the pilot group and engage in some stupid war with one another. Management is bleeding money and they would love a divided group right now while they work on whatever they can to split us up even further. We need unity right now while we move ahead during a time of industry crisis.
I don’t support a recall, but I do think there were some pretty big “mistakes” made. LOA 12 never should’ve been approved without the pilots voting on it. That LOA started the ball rolling without ANY pilot group input. Also, LOA 13 was sold, HARD, by the MEC instead of just laying out the facts with all the pros and cons. The MEC needs to realize they are there to represent the pilots, not to push the pilots into voting one way or another.
02-24-2021, 05:10 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2016
Posts: 591
Originally Posted by PSU Flyer
I don’t support a recall, but I do think there were some pretty big “mistakes” made. LOA 12 never should’ve been approved without the pilots voting on it. That LOA started the ball rolling without ANY pilot group input. Also, LOA 13 was sold, HARD, by the MEC instead of just laying out the facts with all the pros and cons. The MEC needs to realize they are there to represent the pilots, not to push the pilots into voting one way or another.
02-24-2021, 05:15 PM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,512
Originally Posted by BlueJetDork
The CBA before LOA 12 said the company 'may enter into a commercial agreement'. The pilots already approved code sharing!
Wrong. Code sharing required us to be growing before entering into said code share.
Had LOA 12 gone out for a vote as required, we would have seen the full details of the NEA earlier and had a chance to stop it up front.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
02-24-2021, 05:47 PM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2016
Posts: 591
Originally Posted by RiddleEagle18
Wrong. Code sharing required us to be growing before entering into said code share.
Had LOA 12 gone out for a vote as required, we would have seen the full details of the NEA earlier and had a chance to stop it up front.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Had LOA 12 gone out for a vote as required, we would have seen the full details of the NEA earlier and had a chance to stop it up front.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
‘cause we gave it away!
Last edited by BlueJetDork; 02-24-2021 at 06:03 PM.
02-24-2021, 06:02 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,512
Recall of LEC officers and MEC
Originally Posted by BlueJetDork
If we were growing the pilot group gave away scope.
What we “gave away” in our CBA was a simple code share. Nothing like this NEA.
The MEC allowing LOA 12 was the catalyst for what is happening right now.
Had we be given the chance to vote down LOA 12 the NEA agreement between B6-AA may have never had the opportunity to be signed. It may have delayed plans enough that when we reached the growth metrics outlined in the CBA we would’ve been in full recovery mode already. (2022)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
02-24-2021, 06:03 PM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2018
Posts: 704
Originally Posted by BlueJetDork
The CBA before LOA 12 said the company 'may enter into a commercial agreement'. The pilots already approved code sharing!
“The Company may enter into a Commercial Agreement provided:
a. The block hours operated by the Company increase during the relevant
Comparison Period compared to the relevant Base Period,”
So no, the CBA did not allow a new codeshare in this circumstance..... LOA 12 has to be signed to allow it.
02-24-2021, 06:12 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2016
Posts: 591
Originally Posted by Desdi
WOW....U didn’t take the effort reading one line down
“The Company may enter into a Commercial Agreement provided:
a. The block hours operated by the Company increase during the relevant
Comparison Period compared to the relevant Base Period,”
So no, the pilots did not approve codesharing in this circumstance but for LOA 12!
“The Company may enter into a Commercial Agreement provided:
a. The block hours operated by the Company increase during the relevant
Comparison Period compared to the relevant Base Period,”
So no, the pilots did not approve codesharing in this circumstance but for LOA 12!
02-24-2021, 06:17 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2018
Posts: 704
Originally Posted by BlueJetDork
Oh I read it. The pilot group GAVE AWAY CODE SHARING. If we were growing we would simply have read the press release of a code share. The company would had to come to the pilot group for the revenue sharing and the FC to FC and the out of range international of LOA 13 BUT the CBA itself gave away code sharing without pilot group approval ... if we were growing. We did that ... It is comical to point the figure at the MEC for "giving away scope". You did that! ... If we were growing.
The point is if not for LOA 12, the NEA could not even have been contemplated in the company’s current circumstances.
Last edited by Desdi; 02-24-2021 at 06:28 PM.
02-24-2021, 06:35 PM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2019
Posts: 1,188
Originally Posted by Boomer
LOA 12 couldn’t go out for a vote. That would have given 4,100 pilots access to a secret business deal before the general public (and Wall Street) got wind of it. Never would have happened.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
