|
Originally Posted by PinnacleFO
(Post 671365)
Why will the signing bonus have any say in how people vote, the union will decide how it is distributed not the company, it has nothing to do with the company. The only thing that has to with the company is the amount given - the 10 million and its pretty obvious they wont get more.
better yet, take a poll of how many people 1) actually have a hard copy of the CBA. 2) have one in their flight bag. 3) actually opened it at some point. You will find out of 1300 pilots, less than 5% have a hard copy, carry it with them AND opened it in the last 6 months. It is printed paper, so is money, but money you can take to the bank the CBA usually ends up in the garbage. |
Originally Posted by CoATP
(Post 671291)
The only real argument for this TA is that rejecting it will not result in something better. The NMB will take the process back to square one and in the next agreement (in 2-3 years) they'll never make up any difference.
|
The company already bid on the united rfp. You can guarantee it would have to include a ratified contract even for consideration. If this gets voted down the company would quickly need to address the contract if they want the rfp. You can look at the "fear" of saying "no" as a glass half empty, or glass half full.
|
Originally Posted by weaseljet
(Post 667989)
How can something change when it has already been agreed upon? Both sides can't agree on a TA, then change their interpretation of that agreement during publication. That makes it sound likes it wasn't final in the first place.
Let me recall the events: 1. TA agreed by both sides. 2. Review of Final language. 3. Vote by MEC. 4. Release for view by pilot group. I seem to recall the 70-seat FO pay rates actually changed from the TA/roadshows to the final contract. Apparently there was a mathematical error that Comair found and corrected. Needless to say the new rate was in the company's favor. :confused: |
Originally Posted by weaseljet
(Post 667989)
How can something change when it has already been agreed upon? Both sides can't agree on a TA, then change their interpretation of that agreement during publication. That makes it sound likes it wasn't final in the first place.
Let me recall the events: 1. TA agreed by both sides. 2. Review of Final language. 3. Vote by MEC. 4. Release for view by pilot group. More times than I can count with the current CBA, I have heard "the intent of section XX was XXX, not what you read". A prime example is LOA 05-03, what you read and what the company thinks it means are 2 separate things. iators who actually wrote it. |
As a former Pinnacle prisoner, I plead with you guys to vote no if it is not an industry leading deal. Good luck and STFD! if need be.
|
Anyone attend the roadshow in MEM today? I'm curious how the union is spinning this.
|
Originally Posted by B00sted
(Post 672789)
Anyone attend the roadshow in MEM today? I'm curious how the union is stunning this.
|
Originally Posted by Airsupport
(Post 672964)
yeah pretty much from what I got from the road show was that we had to give up a lot of gains for the scope and parent letter we have. Also after hearing them talk it actually does sound like an airtight scope that will protect our jobs. Now was it worth not getting an industry leading contract. That remains to be seen.
Whats the point in having a job if its under opressive draconian work rules? Screw that. |
Its interesting how the union is rushing this thing through. No executive summary, no signing bonus details, LOA's not complete. Wonder why OCT 1 is such a big deal?
Doesn't really matter I guess. Ya'll know how I voted... Phil T. is all about industry average, then give a us a FREAKIN industry average contract. This TA is no where NEAR industry average. What a joke. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:08 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands