Preach!
5/20

 

Now we know the real reason why the company (ie FH) dropped the co-domicile proposal on the table, and it’s working.

Chess v Checkers

The union now needs to Un-AIP it and put a poll out to the pilot group, which is what they should’ve done in the beginning.

My vote is NO

 

According to the reps what we “got” in return is:
-up to 20% of the hard lines will be removed from the original domicile for no increase in pay.
-unlimited number of blank lines will shift to the “co-terminal” for no increase in pay
-all reserves will have to cover both terminals but you can file for reimbursement of parking at the new “co-terminal” IF YOU DRIVE FAST ENOUGH to beat the 3 hour callout
-you might, maybe get premium on the first day only IF YOU DRIVE FAST ENOUGH to beat the 3 hour callout
-no one gets any of the contractual paid for housing move because the company renamed opening a new base into “co-terminal”

The company asked for and got a lot, for not much in return…… that is by definition a concession.



This thread is about the co-terminal concession.

Feel free to start one about red eyes….. I don’t like them either.

.

 

Well as a data point, here’s one guy who would be on the “wrong side” should a co-domicile be established in my base and yet I’m not against them. I’m not for them either. I’m waiting to see the particulars of the language. What a concept 🙄

🔥👇

 

The co-domicile question was included in a previous poll. I guess you didn’t take it since you don’t know that it was in there?

🔥👇

 

One question on one poll with zero education prior to it being asked. Data driven, indeed.

 

.

I guess I forgot, however the fact remains this was brought up by the company as a distraction and not because they’re serious about co-domiciles in the places that need them least.

Since we were already polled, then I would assume SWAPA considered this when they negotiated it, which makes the arguments here moot.

My vote is NO

 

Like I said, I’ll wait until I see the full language. I also understand that negotiations mean both sides will ask for new things, just depends what the other side gets in return.

 

This! Why some here keep mentioning the one question on that poll is beyond me. If I remember it asked would you be interested in co terminals. Well even those against them could be interested in them.

 

There is no way for you to know this.
Agreed 100%. Everyone getting all worked up over something you haven't even seen the full details on. If you dont want it when it's released, vote no. Pretty simple.
Agreed, see above.
Exactly.
Yeah there were several like that in that poll.
The point was, someone thought there should have been polling done, when in fact there was. Perhaps there wasn't enough pushback or negative polling to make the union think this was a bad deal and figured they could win some gains with it. Again who knows until its seen in full.
It was mentioned because someone said there should have been polling done on it, which there was. The statement wasn't "there should have been extensive polling", it was just polling.

At the end of the day we need to wait and see. You have every right to not want to have a co-domicle, but until we know what we got in return, we really dont know if it was a concession. I mean, hypothetically what if the company offered $500 tfp to get co-domiciles, would that be a concession? Obviously they didnt but you hopefully see the point.