Quote:
Has the IBT provided anyone a previous example where an "LBFO" triggered a membership vote?
I am not an aviation history professor, but I can't think of this happening before...EVER.
If I was an employee of the IBT Airline Division I would be worried about the future viability of the entire operation. Why would anyone want to be represented by an organization that provides the Company this "out".
I realize what Article XII, Section 1 (b) says, but the IBT C&B's do not override the RLA. The Airline Division just handed you a grenade, pulled the pin and ran out the door.
What happens if this is ratified? It isn't even a TA at this point in time.
What happens if this is turned down by the membership? Does the Co simply offer another LBFO and you go through the entire goat rodeo ad nauseum?
I realize that your EXCO President recently told you that the Company can't change their LBFO. I'm sorry but this is completely false. In fact, the NMB doesn't even recognize the term LBFO. The RLA doesn't recognize the term. The RLA basically contains 12 steps to a new CBA and you guys are entrenched in step 5. You do not have to touch every step and most negotiations skip 8-11, but the fact that the Company used the term LBFO doesn't get you any closer to an agreement. Now your own Union has intervened, delayed negotiations and forced a vote that will certainly produce no tangible results.
Google "UPS pilots 1997" if you don't believe me about the LBFO, the RLA and mediation. They were in mediation and the company proposed their LBFO before the holidays. The union drew a line in the sand at 21% pay raise while the Co LBFO was 19.8%. They eventually settled on 27% (most of which was retro pay, an interesting and unique circumstance but I digress). My point is the mediator in the UPS negotiation allowed the LBFO and then scheduled additional sessions (after the holiday rush to protect the Co). The Co obviously modified their LBFO, but your EXCO President just assured you that this wasn't possible.
I read the IBT timeline, you have a month to figure this all out.
Call the IBT AD, ask them why they intervened. More importantly, ask them if the have EVER mandated a vote after a LBFO.
Call your EXCO Pres, ask him why he thinks an LBFO can't be changed.
Zooropa, thanks for all the tips. I will do those and if i am successful, i will report back.Originally Posted by zoooropa:1364500
Just curious...Has the IBT provided anyone a previous example where an "LBFO" triggered a membership vote?
I am not an aviation history professor, but I can't think of this happening before...EVER.
If I was an employee of the IBT Airline Division I would be worried about the future viability of the entire operation. Why would anyone want to be represented by an organization that provides the Company this "out".
I realize what Article XII, Section 1 (b) says, but the IBT C&B's do not override the RLA. The Airline Division just handed you a grenade, pulled the pin and ran out the door.
What happens if this is ratified? It isn't even a TA at this point in time.
What happens if this is turned down by the membership? Does the Co simply offer another LBFO and you go through the entire goat rodeo ad nauseum?
I realize that your EXCO President recently told you that the Company can't change their LBFO. I'm sorry but this is completely false. In fact, the NMB doesn't even recognize the term LBFO. The RLA doesn't recognize the term. The RLA basically contains 12 steps to a new CBA and you guys are entrenched in step 5. You do not have to touch every step and most negotiations skip 8-11, but the fact that the Company used the term LBFO doesn't get you any closer to an agreement. Now your own Union has intervened, delayed negotiations and forced a vote that will certainly produce no tangible results.
Google "UPS pilots 1997" if you don't believe me about the LBFO, the RLA and mediation. They were in mediation and the company proposed their LBFO before the holidays. The union drew a line in the sand at 21% pay raise while the Co LBFO was 19.8%. They eventually settled on 27% (most of which was retro pay, an interesting and unique circumstance but I digress). My point is the mediator in the UPS negotiation allowed the LBFO and then scheduled additional sessions (after the holiday rush to protect the Co). The Co obviously modified their LBFO, but your EXCO President just assured you that this wasn't possible.
I read the IBT timeline, you have a month to figure this all out.
Call the IBT AD, ask them why they intervened. More importantly, ask them if the have EVER mandated a vote after a LBFO.
Call your EXCO Pres, ask him why he thinks an LBFO can't be changed.
Quote:
You would be $5 dollars an hour richer and you will most likely vote no on this LBFO where QOL, cancellation pay, minimum duty day and overtime pay are concerned.
Bolo, Originally Posted by Bolo:1365805
Quote:
Flash forward to '12 and the Company can't fill seats because of that same laughable pay, but now WH/BB are all concerned about our FO's financial wellbeing.
Not being able to attract new hires because of the crappy contract is one of the few pieces of leverage we have. As someone sitting at the 36.62 mark, I will grudgingly sit at this pay rate a bit longer in an effort to fix some of the QoL items in our contract for everyone (and in the long term, myself even after I upgrade). Slightly more pay without fixing such items as cancellation pay, minimum duty day, and real overtime pay are useless.
These QoL/ softpay issues are going to be even more important when the new rest and duty rules go into effect as the schedules are likely to become much more unproductive.
I do not disagree with what you are saying, but if the company is willing to give the FO's a pay increase(which they did about 6 months ago) knowing that you are underpaid, WITHOUT having to give anything up then you should have taken it! You would be here now with a $5 dollar hour increase at the same juncture.Originally Posted by WeaselBoy
In late '08 or early '09 the IBT tried to draw up an LOA to increase FO pay and give slight increases beyond the topped out five year mark. WH literally laughed.Flash forward to '12 and the Company can't fill seats because of that same laughable pay, but now WH/BB are all concerned about our FO's financial wellbeing.
Not being able to attract new hires because of the crappy contract is one of the few pieces of leverage we have. As someone sitting at the 36.62 mark, I will grudgingly sit at this pay rate a bit longer in an effort to fix some of the QoL items in our contract for everyone (and in the long term, myself even after I upgrade). Slightly more pay without fixing such items as cancellation pay, minimum duty day, and real overtime pay are useless.
These QoL/ softpay issues are going to be even more important when the new rest and duty rules go into effect as the schedules are likely to become much more unproductive.
You would be $5 dollars an hour richer and you will most likely vote no on this LBFO where QOL, cancellation pay, minimum duty day and overtime pay are concerned.
Their proposal wasnt $5/hr across the board for the FOs. First year pay was increased by $5 but 4th year pay was $1 or less. Then again, i agree with you about not accepring it was a mistake.
Just curious, what is the timeframe on this vote? I haven't had much luck with the IBT at past airlines, hope they represent you guys appropriately...
Quote:
How's that working out? Lessee...
UAL Senior pilots vs. ALPA - ALPA lost
UAL Junior pilots vs. ALPA- looking pretty bad, same charges as the seniors
TWA vs. ALPA - ALPA lost, looks like that'll be about $1.5 billion plus
AirTran vs. ALPA- ???
Maybe you'd be better off not listening to your handlers. So far their track record is pretty poor.
Seems the IBT Airline Division is run from the bottom up...by pilots who control their own destiny. They get a chance to vote a deal up or down. Unlike ALPA who will refuse to let you vote and then cram a deal down your throat and then have their lawyers and Jalmer Johnson tell you to ratify the deal or they cut off your funding. (Another difference...IBT pilot groups KEEP the bulk of their money, as opposed to ALPA who demands you send it ALL to them).
You know PCL...like you guys did to your pilots. And now you have a DFR!
Your rhetoric has been out of date (and full of lies) for years, but now you're really sounding stale. Jalmer retired months ago. Get some new material.Originally Posted by ATCsaidDoWhat
Look who's back! The AirTran troll! Who knows nothing about the Airline Division but what his ALPA handlers told him to say. How'd that work out for ya over there? I hear a bunch of your guys are suing ALPA over DFR when you and the boys screwed them on seniority. What was the deal again? Let SWA screw your guys in hopes that sucking up would get SWAPA to join ALPA?How's that working out? Lessee...
UAL Senior pilots vs. ALPA - ALPA lost
UAL Junior pilots vs. ALPA- looking pretty bad, same charges as the seniors
TWA vs. ALPA - ALPA lost, looks like that'll be about $1.5 billion plus
AirTran vs. ALPA- ???
Maybe you'd be better off not listening to your handlers. So far their track record is pretty poor.
Seems the IBT Airline Division is run from the bottom up...by pilots who control their own destiny. They get a chance to vote a deal up or down. Unlike ALPA who will refuse to let you vote and then cram a deal down your throat and then have their lawyers and Jalmer Johnson tell you to ratify the deal or they cut off your funding. (Another difference...IBT pilot groups KEEP the bulk of their money, as opposed to ALPA who demands you send it ALL to them).
You know PCL...like you guys did to your pilots. And now you have a DFR!
good god...just when I think APC hits bottom, there comes an 11 page thread like this.
The NC was well aware of the IBT constitution at the time the LBFO was made and even reminded RAH about the vote requirement.
Ever since the 357 put up that first RAHcontractNOW.org site and put an ad on APC, RAH management or sympathizers have used this message board to spew phony dissent.
The LARGE majority of RAH pilots know the game that is being played and who has their best interests as a top priority and thats all that matters.
..now...what channel is Maury on in Kanas City?
The NC was well aware of the IBT constitution at the time the LBFO was made and even reminded RAH about the vote requirement.
Ever since the 357 put up that first RAHcontractNOW.org site and put an ad on APC, RAH management or sympathizers have used this message board to spew phony dissent.
The LARGE majority of RAH pilots know the game that is being played and who has their best interests as a top priority and thats all that matters.
..now...what channel is Maury on in Kanas City?
Vote has been cancelled..
This was never their Last or their Best or their Final Offer.
This was never their Last or their Best or their Final Offer.
Quote:
But Craig said (repeatedly and adamantly) that the Company could NOT change the LBFO.Originally Posted by flyguy23
The LBFO submitted in mediation is different than the one just submitted to vote on. If changes are being made, its not really a LBFO.
Bedford called it the LBFO at least six times during the Quarterly Earnings conference call on Feb 28th.
I guess Craig was wrong, again.
I also thought the IBT was a "bottom up" organization? They told us that the Locals make all of the decisions while National provides all of the support. Unfortunately, in this case, the National is making all of the decisions. First, National told the Local 357 that they had to conduct a vote on the LBFO. Second, in a letter dated yesterday from David B of the IBT Airline Division to Craig, National "updated" the Local 357 "on the status of OUR negotiations with the Company".
This doesn't sound like a "bottom up" process at all.
Bourne goes on to say that "we will keep you advised of any progress or developments".
***? So IBT National is going to update the Local 357 of the status of their Mediation.
The IBT is imploding. The "LBFO Vote" and now this is practically a guarantee that they will never "win" another airline property. Who could vote them in knowing that a LBFO will trigger a vote. Who could vote them in knowing the IBT Airline Division will step in and take control over a Local's Negotiating Committee AND a Local Executive Council?
Quote:
Bedford called it the LBFO at least six times during the Quarterly Earnings conference call on Feb 28th.
I guess Craig was wrong, again.
I also thought the IBT was a "bottom up" organization? They told us that the Locals make all of the decisions while National provides all of the support. Unfortunately, in this case, the National is making all of the decisions. First, National told the Local 357 that they had to conduct a vote on the LBFO. Second, in a letter dated yesterday from David B of the IBT Airline Division to Craig, National "updated" the Local 357 "on the status of OUR negotiations with the Company".
This doesn't sound like a "bottom up" process at all.
Bourne goes on to say that "we will keep you advised of any progress or developments".
***? So IBT National is going to update the Local 357 of the status of their Mediation.
The IBT is imploding. The "LBFO Vote" and now this is practically a guarantee that they will never "win" another airline property. Who could vote them in knowing that a LBFO will trigger a vote. Who could vote them in knowing the IBT Airline Division will step in and take control over a Local's Negotiating Committee AND a Local Executive Council?
Originally Posted by zoooropa
But Craig said (repeatedly and adamantly) that the Company could NOT change the LBFO.Bedford called it the LBFO at least six times during the Quarterly Earnings conference call on Feb 28th.
I guess Craig was wrong, again.
I also thought the IBT was a "bottom up" organization? They told us that the Locals make all of the decisions while National provides all of the support. Unfortunately, in this case, the National is making all of the decisions. First, National told the Local 357 that they had to conduct a vote on the LBFO. Second, in a letter dated yesterday from David B of the IBT Airline Division to Craig, National "updated" the Local 357 "on the status of OUR negotiations with the Company".
This doesn't sound like a "bottom up" process at all.
Bourne goes on to say that "we will keep you advised of any progress or developments".
***? So IBT National is going to update the Local 357 of the status of their Mediation.
The IBT is imploding. The "LBFO Vote" and now this is practically a guarantee that they will never "win" another airline property. Who could vote them in knowing that a LBFO will trigger a vote. Who could vote them in knowing the IBT Airline Division will step in and take control over a Local's Negotiating Committee AND a Local Executive Council?
Craig was right, the LBFO cannot change. The fact that it did is the reason it is no longer considered the LBFO and there will be no vote. The Local has been working with National throughout this whole thing. It has very much been a bottom up process. Do you really think the local was surprised by the letters recieved from IBT? No, they were just "official" letters announcing what local and national had agreed on. Im not a fan of CM, but you're reaching here.
