Sav…. and BNA too?
05-04-2023 | 03:22 PM
#51
Spikes the Koolaid
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 435
Likes: 16
From: 737
Their addition doesn't require a new contract and they're not a status quo violation. You wanna add bases? Have at it! No side letter or broken promises of 800 flying being paid back later required!
And if you start making promises of new bases to get a contract and then decide not to open new bases when you realize that you can without withholding a new contract? Color me surprised.
Thankfully, this does not reflect my resolve on our negotiations. Last time I heard BNA burns down hear a well as DAL.
05-05-2023 | 09:21 AM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 4,553
Likes: 397
Damn, y'all still SET?
Last I checked, we are 3 years into a contract that isn't going to end any time soon and I was told in training to accept no unnecessary risk. The ONLY times I find that risk acceptable is when we are tight on fuel (rare) or if I am in a max and someone needs the space I am occupying (also rare).
Someone did the calculation somewhere, but I believe it's like 126 years of single engine taxi to make back the money that Bob and company lost us in 4 days? I think for the time being, I am just going to concentrate on running a tight ship and a safe operation and they can concentrate on getting us a contract.
That's just me talking, though. I wouldn't advocate anyone else do the same. Just me doing some ABCD RRM MATM stuff.
Last I checked, we are 3 years into a contract that isn't going to end any time soon and I was told in training to accept no unnecessary risk. The ONLY times I find that risk acceptable is when we are tight on fuel (rare) or if I am in a max and someone needs the space I am occupying (also rare).
Someone did the calculation somewhere, but I believe it's like 126 years of single engine taxi to make back the money that Bob and company lost us in 4 days? I think for the time being, I am just going to concentrate on running a tight ship and a safe operation and they can concentrate on getting us a contract.
That's just me talking, though. I wouldn't advocate anyone else do the same. Just me doing some ABCD RRM MATM stuff.
05-05-2023 | 09:20 PM
#55
Line Holder
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 769
Likes: 77
Unfortunately the yessie's heads will explode trying to figure this crap out. It's embarrassing.
05-06-2023 | 04:14 AM
#56
gets time off
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,512
Likes: 93
05-06-2023 | 12:02 PM
#57
At your mom's house
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,675
Likes: 449
From: cpt 737
05-06-2023 | 02:57 PM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,264
Likes: 0
And to inject some realism about how close we might be to a release: aside from the fact that we are more than a year away from surpassing the average numbers of days in mediation for cases handled recently by the NMB (which the courts have established is an important metric), SWAPA also said in their email that we are still AIP'ing sections. If we are AIP'ing sections, that is progress. Progress is the opposite of an impasse. Like SWAPA explained in the same email, the mediator measures progress with AIP's. IOW, on more than one front, we are nowhere near an impasse from all indications.
Remember, the courts have established that "movement toward the position of the other side is not a requirement of good faith bargaining." Also, "[m]ere insistence on demands that seem extremely harsh to the other side and that a neutral party may consider `hard' is not a violation of bargaining duties." Another court threw out the idea "that proposals 'must be within a debatable range and not so extreme as necessarily to preclude favorable consideration' by the other party." We don't have to be constantly moving toward the company's side and we don't have to constrain our demands to what the company (or anyone else) considers fair or industry standard (if that's what is going on).
If any of the above concerns you, let your reps and execs know that you're not on board with JA, and with continuing to AIP sections of the contract that may not be absolutely industry-leading (JA of any sort is NOT industry-leading) when the RLA doesn't require us to treat the company with kid gloves, esp in this pilot hiring market (the SCOTUS has said, "labor laws allow economic strength ultimately to control the establishment of contract terms, regardless of which side may have better reasons for its position.")
05-07-2023 | 05:04 AM
#59
On Reserve
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 116
Likes: 1
Not to be too much a "Debby Downer," but JA is obviously not going away in the new contract based on yesterday's NC update, which mentioned "SWAPA’s asks" for "recovery days for JAed Pilots." The clear inference from that statement is that SWAPA isn't even demanding that JA be eliminated.
05-07-2023 | 06:20 AM
#60
Line Holder
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 997
Likes: 68
Not to be too much a "Debby Downer," but JA is obviously not going away in the new contract based on yesterday's NC update, which mentioned "SWAPA’s asks" for "recovery days for JAed Pilots." The clear inference from that statement is that SWAPA isn't even demanding that JA be eliminated.
• JA is clearly defined as any flying on scheduled days off whether it’s a new pairing or a reassignment into an unscheduled overnight. Pilots JAed on days off would be protected from reassignments, entitled to a hotel, and provided QOL recovery day credit(s) to be “cashed in” using the ELITT system.
SWAPA never said they'd negotiate to get rid of JA and the time to complain about that has come and gone.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
