New flaw in TA scope

Closed Thread Subscribe

Page 29 of 39

« First

Last »

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

06-02-2012 | 07:59 PM

#281

Boomer

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Jan 2008

Posts: 4,628

Likes: 15

From: blueJet

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta1067

Were you working during the DTW road show?

Those greens aren't going to water themselves you know.

06-02-2012 | 08:00 PM

#282

Carl Spackler

Back on TDY

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 12,487

Likes: 0

From: 747-400 Captain

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowplay

There are no penalties outlined in the TA against the company. Putting penalties in that agreement presupposes that they could violate the contract and it would be "ok", that there were penalties agreed to for violating it. It's akin to asking "what penalties are in the agreement if the company doesn't pay us." Also, if management isn't abiding by the agreement in the ratios, why would they abide by the agreed upon penalties?

Disputes like you describe are resolved in 2 places, the grievance process and the court system.

Actually, they're resolved in one additional place... A single MEC bureaucrat signing a Memorandum Of Understanding that grants the company relief from the alleged contract violation.

Carl

06-02-2012 | 08:02 PM

#283

Carl Spackler

Back on TDY

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 12,487

Likes: 0

From: 747-400 Captain

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta1067

Were you working during the DTW road show? I don't remember a 747A at the microphone addressing any concerns.

No. A dermatologist was busy removing a chunk out of me. But I'm here now. What concerns would you like addressed?

Carl

06-02-2012 | 08:03 PM

#284

Carl Spackler

Back on TDY

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 12,487

Likes: 0

From: 747-400 Captain

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boomer

Those greens aren't going to water themselves you know.

And the world needs ditch diggers too you know!

Carl

06-02-2012 | 08:05 PM

#285

Carl Spackler

Back on TDY

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 12,487

Likes: 0

From: 747-400 Captain

Quote:

Originally Posted by FIIGMO

I am not sure we can make Management do anything like that. They provide the aircraft we fly them. The ratios and block hours are in this TA. Not perfect but there. DCI is shrinking (think seats and DCI pilots not 50 v76 seat a/c) our block hours at mainline are increasing.... Management can park all 747-400 right now if they wanted (Carl would be my captain on the 737-800 we would be having a blast, I mean that) we cant control that. It is all a gamble i believe.

I'd be having the blast. You'd be the one wondering if you should take the aircraft now, or do you dare wait one more second!

Carl

06-02-2012 | 08:06 PM

#286

TeddyKGB

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Jul 2010

Posts: 1,673

Likes: 0

From: 7er

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

No. A dermatologist was busy removing a chunk out of me. But I'm here now. What concerns would you like addressed?

Carl

Ummmm, I think you are the one with concerns that need addressing. I'm fine thank you sir.

06-02-2012 | 08:06 PM

#287

DeadHead

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Mar 2008

Posts: 2,919

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boomer

"The 717 deal requires the pilot TA to pass, unmodified, by June 30th. A NO vote will immediately negate the 717 delivery timeline and the deal is off. This is a one-time chance, and this TA is my last, best offer. There will be no further negotiations outside of Section 6."

- Richard Anderson, Wall Street Journal, 06/23/12

Moreso a reason to vote No in my opinion, and I don't buy it.

06-02-2012 | 08:14 PM

#288

Carl Spackler

Back on TDY

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 12,487

Likes: 0

From: 747-400 Captain

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnso29

I don't think I ever said that. Also don't take my conversation with gloopy as my opinion of this TA, or how I will vote for it. My issue is with people who continue berate the NC, yet aren't willing to do the job they do. They insult the NC's methods, when they have no idea what their job truly entails. They will talk the talk, but not walk the walk.

Actually, our structure clearly spells out the role of the NC. We know exactly what their job is supposed to entail. We know for certain that the norms were not followed this time. We know for certain that the full MEC was NOT consulted when it was clear the company would not give what our surveys said the pilots wanted. Now did the NC make that decision on their own, or were their actions given a nod by the MEC administrators? That we may never know. We just know our reps were locked out of the process until a TA had been signed with management.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnso29

I don't think I ever said that. Also don't take If someone doesn't like the TA, that's fine. Just vote NO. But stop insisting that the NC rolled over, & implying that it's so easy to do a better job.

I don't think anyone's implying that the NC rolled over. We're just saying the NC agreed to something that did not meet the direction given to the NC by our reps. And those reps were not consulted again until there was a signed TA. Process really does matter. The incredible angst over this TA is proof of what happens when you ignore it.

Carl

06-02-2012 | 08:16 PM

#289

Carl Spackler

Back on TDY

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 12,487

Likes: 0

From: 747-400 Captain

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta1067

Ummmm, I think you are the one with concerns that need addressing. I'm fine thank you sir.

OK. Then why did you say this?:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta1067

Were you working during the DTW road show? I don't remember a 747A at the microphone addressing any concerns.

Carl

06-02-2012 | 08:17 PM

#290

Carl Spackler

Back on TDY

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 12,487

Likes: 0

From: 747-400 Captain

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAL73n

ACL

You and FTB have the nail on the head with the flaw in the ration PROTECTION LANGUAGE. Everyone seems to think the ratios will require main line growth to keep up with DCI. Everyone (especially the MEC and LEC reps selling this TA) seems to forget that the ratios can be easily met by shrinking DCI with the retired 50s and the new 76 seaters. In addition, the 300 jobs lost are only an estimate of the new work rules and I believe the company will make much better use of the new work rules to prevent any new hiring and in fact will result in more displacement bids from higher paying A/C (everything at DAL main line) to lower paying A/C (717s) - this is another pay cut that no one is talking about.

Great post!

Carl