Spirit of NKS
10-29-2009, 12:06 PM
#991
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 758
Originally Posted by Short Bus Drive
I was there. WE, the rank and file, voted. And the MAJORITY voted FOR it. But it's funny to hear how many people voted "against" it. (So how did it pass?) A lot of people there don't want to admit to voting for it.
Who gave you the "trust us" response? The only person I know that I can see saying that is flying somewhere else (for now- I've heard).
Who gave you the "trust us" response? The only person I know that I can see saying that is flying somewhere else (for now- I've heard).
But that was 2003. These guys are talking about 2007. NOBODY said trust us. The elected Reps stated publicly that the TA package would go to the membership. It was never written into the policy manual because the negotiators always need the ability to imply that they could get MEC ratification in case of a really great deal.
If you saved the AMES messages, I believe you will find assurances that the membership would get to vote on the contract.
How's the rails? in the end, you may end up better than all of us. if so, good on you.
10-29-2009, 12:13 PM
#992
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 758
Originally Posted by Left Handed
I wasn't here for the last contract, but I've heard the rank and file complain about not having a vote. When you have pilots willing to sell out other pilots for personal gain, I would not want the power in the hands of someone else. I have asked the MEC to put their money where their mouth is and make MEMRAT the official way to do the vote, and have gotten the "Why do we need to put it down on paper, just trust us" response. We have had a history of signing things without even telling the membership, and I for one would like to see some accountability on the part of our MEC. Although, I do thing the current MEC is less apt to do this than the last one.
IF the Herbites had intended to ram a contract down the groups throat, YOU WOULD HAVE A CONTRACT!. It really is that simple. We could have gotten a contract, and the pilots would have likely voted to ratify said contract. However, the MEC had promised dramatic improvements and chose to pass the torch to the next MEC rather than accept less than promised.
We could have had a deal summer 2006, had the MEC been willing to accept "cost neutral" and get the pay raise from productivity increases.
Try to get some facts next time.
10-30-2009, 07:43 AM
#993
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: 319/320/321...whatever it takes.
Posts: 492
Originally Posted by Left Handed
I asked several of the previous MEC to institute MEMRAT officially and was told we don't need it because they would not sign anything without consulting us first. (my "trust us" was paraphrasing). I just don't like that they can if they wanted to.
[quote=skybolt;703285]
The elected Reps stated publicly that the TA package would go to the membership. It was never written into the policy manual because the negotiators always need the ability to imply that they could get MEC ratification in case of a really great deal.
[quote]
This is my point. It should only be considered a great deal if the membership thinks it's a great deal, not just the MEC. I just don't like the power in the hands of a few. I respect your opinion, though, and I know you are a good guy (if you are who I think you are). I agree that this is a dispararte group, and it will be an interesting vote when we get to one.
10-30-2009, 10:58 AM
#994
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 758
[QUOTE=Left Handed;703704][quote=skybolt;703285]
The elected Reps stated publicly that the TA package would go to the membership. It was never written into the policy manual because the negotiators always need the ability to imply that they could get MEC ratification in case of a really great deal.
This is my point. It should only be considered a great deal if the membership thinks it's a great deal, not just the MEC. I just don't like the power in the hands of a few. I respect your opinion, though, and I know you are a good guy (if you are who I think you are). I agree that this is a dispararte group, and it will be an interesting vote when we get to one.
No, the point is that keeping the company in the dark regarding who will be able to make the final decision is a plus for us in negotations.
As long as the official policy is neutral on MEC ratification vs membership ratification, the negotiators can play the company both ways.
If you don't like the power in the hands of a few, you should read the ALPA
C & BL's. The power is in the hands of a majority at a Local meeting. That's reality, just nobody cares to fight that fight.
The elected Reps stated publicly that the TA package would go to the membership. It was never written into the policy manual because the negotiators always need the ability to imply that they could get MEC ratification in case of a really great deal.
This is my point. It should only be considered a great deal if the membership thinks it's a great deal, not just the MEC. I just don't like the power in the hands of a few. I respect your opinion, though, and I know you are a good guy (if you are who I think you are). I agree that this is a dispararte group, and it will be an interesting vote when we get to one.
As long as the official policy is neutral on MEC ratification vs membership ratification, the negotiators can play the company both ways.
If you don't like the power in the hands of a few, you should read the ALPA
C & BL's. The power is in the hands of a majority at a Local meeting. That's reality, just nobody cares to fight that fight.
11-05-2009, 09:21 AM
#995
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 647
Can someone in the November recall class give us a little scoop? Anything interesting?
11-06-2009, 06:29 AM
#996
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,857
Ive got a friend in class now, he is trying to find out what the plans are for JAN-MAR. Of course the are gonna be rumors at best. But I hope for some more call by FEB for a MAR class!!!
We'll see.
We'll see.
11-06-2009, 11:18 AM
#997
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 647
Yea, that would be good to know what they are being told.
11-06-2009, 12:43 PM
#998
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,857
This is what he told me:
4-5 A/C next year. Starting as early as JAN.
Small recall possible by FEB or MAR.
The recall is small due to the fact that they want to use some of the new A/C as SPARES. (??? i always thought an a/c on the ground looses money)
If FAA passes the new rest reg.(?) they have to increase workforce by 15%. Means all furloughs plus new people.
NOT OFFICIAL, it is what they are being told.
(personally, I always keep my hopes up, specially now, it is a matter of time, and I don't think that time it is much further.)
Not the best, but certainly not the worst.
Cheers.
4-5 A/C next year. Starting as early as JAN.
Small recall possible by FEB or MAR.
The recall is small due to the fact that they want to use some of the new A/C as SPARES. (??? i always thought an a/c on the ground looses money)
If FAA passes the new rest reg.(?) they have to increase workforce by 15%. Means all furloughs plus new people.
NOT OFFICIAL, it is what they are being told.
(personally, I always keep my hopes up, specially now, it is a matter of time, and I don't think that time it is much further.)
Not the best, but certainly not the worst.
Cheers.
11-06-2009, 01:19 PM
#999
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 647
You are right. My understanding is the FAA has been pressuring Spirit to have one or two spare aircrafts based on their use. I don't think it comes from their good intentions. I may be wrong.
11-10-2009, 12:53 PM
#1000
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,857
What's up with our POI jump-seating quizzing everyone specially the FO's, from FLL-DTW nonstop, I thought they were there to OBSERVED???
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
