Spirit of NKS
01-22-2015 | 08:04 AM
#9831
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,499
Likes: 0
Reading the JL question and answer that was posted. The first question was one that all of us have asked, "why is the iPad protocol LOA combined with the distance learning"
He doesn't know and said "that's a good question, I'll find out".
How the heck did anyone in the MEC not think to ask this very basic question when the NC presented the LOA? This is a basic question that even us knuckleheads on a forum keep asking. How?!
Reminds me of a scene from Casino when Sam Rothstein is confronting his casino slots manager when consecutive large jackpots were hit in a row....
"Listen, if you didn't know you're being scammed, you're too frickin' dumb to keep this job. If you did know, you were in on it. Either way, you're out. Get out! Go on. Let's go."
He doesn't know and said "that's a good question, I'll find out".
How the heck did anyone in the MEC not think to ask this very basic question when the NC presented the LOA? This is a basic question that even us knuckleheads on a forum keep asking. How?!
Reminds me of a scene from Casino when Sam Rothstein is confronting his casino slots manager when consecutive large jackpots were hit in a row....
"Listen, if you didn't know you're being scammed, you're too frickin' dumb to keep this job. If you did know, you were in on it. Either way, you're out. Get out! Go on. Let's go."
Scary. Makes me nervous about, well, a lot of things
01-22-2015 | 09:42 AM
#9832
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,577
Likes: 0
All of the FO rep's campaign material showed a woeful lack of knowledge of the ALPA C&BL, current CBA, and pretty much all other aspects of ALPA life. The signs were there. (Gringo translation - the sines we're their). We chose to ignore them.
01-22-2015 | 09:47 AM
#9834
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
From: A320 CA
The company is going to gain major savings with home study. Good for them. I see no reason to add to that by agreeing to study on my days off. I get few enough as it is. Those two days need to count toward my minimum days off guarantee as per the current contract. Anything less is a concession. I am voting NO.
01-22-2015 | 09:59 AM
#9835
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,499
Likes: 0
Maybe our MEC will host an open forum via conference call or webcast to answer questions, discuss issues etc.
01-22-2015 | 10:15 AM
#9836
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 758
Likes: 1
The Devil is in the details.
I've been asking for a change in strategy, from "hold everything til contract negotiations" to "take a gain when it's available" for a long time. Therefore, I can't beat up SPA ALPA for changing direction and attempting to make a gain. I agree with what seems to be the prevailing attitude here that we should have gotten more, but I generally support the Distance Learning provisions.
With that said, THIS IS A "BUY IT AND GRIEVE IT" LOA when one considers the "Pilot Protection" section.
Please stop focusing on the layman's language and look at the legal language in the "Pilot Protections" section. THE LANGUAGE IS MOSTLY COMPANY PROTECTION LANGUAGE. YES, I know that I'm yelling.
Sorry, but this Section,
"2. Pilots are not liable for malfunctioning or damaged EFBs, or stolen EFBs (provided there is a police report) except in the case of willful misconduct. The Company will not bear the replacement cost of lost devices unless the pilot establishes he has used due diligence in maintaining custody of the device. In the case where the pilot is found to be responsible for the replacement cost of the device, such cost will be at the fair market value of the equipment at the time of loss."
does not protect us. It protects the company. This means that a lost (or damaged, or malfunctioning - see next paragraph) iPad will have to be replaced by the pilot until the company determines that the pilot is innocent in the loss/damage/malfunction. The comma in the "pilots are not liable", followed by "except" essentially nullifies the "Pilot are not….." verbiage.
Think about this scenario, you use your partition to load an app, any app. Sometime thereafter, the pad locks up. You go to the crew room, (unattended by a CP of course) and request a replacement iPad. The FA supervisor will not issue you a replacement until you provide your credit card and approve the $800 charge. When you protest, the tell you that you will be reimbursed for the $800 as soon as IT determines that no "willful misconduct" occurred. Two weeks later, you call to follow up and are told that the app you loaded into your partition caused the lock up. Cha Ching, another $800 just went into Spirit's profit statement. What do you do? You just bought an iPad and your only recourse will be to grieve the bill. Good Luck proving that your app didn't cause the malfunction.
With that said, THIS IS A "BUY IT AND GRIEVE IT" LOA when one considers the "Pilot Protection" section.
Please stop focusing on the layman's language and look at the legal language in the "Pilot Protections" section. THE LANGUAGE IS MOSTLY COMPANY PROTECTION LANGUAGE. YES, I know that I'm yelling.
Sorry, but this Section,
"2. Pilots are not liable for malfunctioning or damaged EFBs, or stolen EFBs (provided there is a police report) except in the case of willful misconduct. The Company will not bear the replacement cost of lost devices unless the pilot establishes he has used due diligence in maintaining custody of the device. In the case where the pilot is found to be responsible for the replacement cost of the device, such cost will be at the fair market value of the equipment at the time of loss."
does not protect us. It protects the company. This means that a lost (or damaged, or malfunctioning - see next paragraph) iPad will have to be replaced by the pilot until the company determines that the pilot is innocent in the loss/damage/malfunction. The comma in the "pilots are not liable", followed by "except" essentially nullifies the "Pilot are not….." verbiage.
Think about this scenario, you use your partition to load an app, any app. Sometime thereafter, the pad locks up. You go to the crew room, (unattended by a CP of course) and request a replacement iPad. The FA supervisor will not issue you a replacement until you provide your credit card and approve the $800 charge. When you protest, the tell you that you will be reimbursed for the $800 as soon as IT determines that no "willful misconduct" occurred. Two weeks later, you call to follow up and are told that the app you loaded into your partition caused the lock up. Cha Ching, another $800 just went into Spirit's profit statement. What do you do? You just bought an iPad and your only recourse will be to grieve the bill. Good Luck proving that your app didn't cause the malfunction.
01-22-2015 | 10:23 AM
#9838
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,385
Likes: 0
From: Airplane
Pilot call going now, hope someone records and posts the Q&A session. Should be interesting.
01-22-2015 | 10:28 AM
#9839
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 758
Likes: 1
Exactly!
Not only is this TA (it's a TA, not LOA for now) weak in substance, I see several holes in the language. Remember, they (MEC) had all the time they wanted to proof and send the NC back for improvement. This is the final product they decided to send us. Also keep in mind, given the savings to the company, we have the leverage on this issue. The company should want this more than we do.
Example of holes?
B2 - How is "fair market" determined? Think 5 years from now you are sent a $600 bill for a 6 year old ipad you could pick up online for $50. Also, the normal grievance procedures apply to finding fault on the loss of equipment. The process would go like this (for your $50 ipad)...
- I lost my ipad while maintaining due diligence.
- company disagrees
-MEC files formal grievance
-company dismisses grievance
Next step? Arbitration.
Ask yourself if your MEC is going to spend 10K arbitrating a $50 ipad. Easier and cheaper to send you the $600 bill. Maybe they will payroll deduct it for you.
B7 Bothers me too. The requirement is to "meet and confer", just like we have now with uniforms. As stated before, the company could dress us in gorilla suits if they wanted, all they are required to do is "confer" with the MEC.
Not only is this TA (it's a TA, not LOA for now) weak in substance, I see several holes in the language. Remember, they (MEC) had all the time they wanted to proof and send the NC back for improvement. This is the final product they decided to send us. Also keep in mind, given the savings to the company, we have the leverage on this issue. The company should want this more than we do.
Example of holes?
B2 - How is "fair market" determined? Think 5 years from now you are sent a $600 bill for a 6 year old ipad you could pick up online for $50. Also, the normal grievance procedures apply to finding fault on the loss of equipment. The process would go like this (for your $50 ipad)...
- I lost my ipad while maintaining due diligence.
- company disagrees
-MEC files formal grievance
-company dismisses grievance
Next step? Arbitration.
Ask yourself if your MEC is going to spend 10K arbitrating a $50 ipad. Easier and cheaper to send you the $600 bill. Maybe they will payroll deduct it for you.
B7 Bothers me too. The requirement is to "meet and confer", just like we have now with uniforms. As stated before, the company could dress us in gorilla suits if they wanted, all they are required to do is "confer" with the MEC.
I just saw this. You beat me to it.
Ditto
01-22-2015 | 10:33 AM
#9840
Banned
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,929
Likes: 0
From: A-320
Back into the $8x.xx stock wise, up almost 8% today
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
