Why did Bendo say we were close on last nights Podcast? I mean why say that if it isn't true? I don't get it

 

Because in his mind, we probably are. Compared to the flight attendants in their eighth year of negotiations, we probably are close.

 

Do you mean the rep who called in sick, lied about it, faked Dr's notes and got caught? That one?

 

If for no other reason than this, JA needs to go. Even though he eaked out a win in Article 8, he's getting his arse kicked by MM/PS/SM/TH/PD AND bendoveritis all at the same time.

BiminiBendo's posts are good for a good laugh, but the truth is that JA is taking it in the shorts from all sides. Even if he is hanging with bendover, it only makes him look like a contestant on the Biggest Loser.

Even worse, the only thing our negotiators can win at is a fight with their own MEC Chairperson. They do get credit for that one though, they threw JA under the bus more than once in the conf call.

It time for ALL OF THEM TO GO!

 

Eeeeevil shenanigans

 

So "only" 250ish pilots recieving additional compensation for doing 'nothing', "only" 100ish additional upgrades (through this year), "only" 400ish additional pilots through 2021? Is that the "only" you're referring to?

Can you imagine the bonus bendo will recieve for getting rid of that language?

There are zero reasons why we shouldn't receive industry leading wages and retirement "DOS" with the amount saved by getting rid of transition language. As if having the lowest CASM in the industry wasn't enough to convince this group we should be the highest paid, getting rid of transition would require we be paid.

The cavet being, unless of course we're into subsidizing spirits growth on our backs with poor wages.

So, are we?

 

Nope

Filler

 

How the Railway Labor Act works is well defined; what people call it may differ however. We have been in direct negotiations since our union and the company exchanged Section 6 notices at the amendable date. What flavor the negotiations take is entirely up to the parties. They made it pretty clear on the conference call that both sides decided to entertain targeted, nonprejudicial negotiations. Under standard Section 6 negotiations, the parties normally hammer out agreements on individual sections and put them in the done pile. All of this is documented to nth degree and part of the record. Once a section is TA'd it isn't reopened willy nilly, else you'd never get to the end if everything was always still on the table. Yes, some sections of the contract are often interrelated and are tied together, weighing gains and losses in them jointly, think pay and scheduling.

They explained on the conference call that since the company's offer was so far from the intent of the targeted negotiations that rather than be strung along with lowball (perhaps delay tactics) offers, it was in our interest to revert to the standard section 6 methodology and get sections TA'd and on the record. They left the door open to entertain new targeted offers if the company wanted to bring forth reasonable offers.

Although the NC referred to upcoming negotiations as section 6, they were referring to the standard process vs. the targeted nonprejudicial process they had been using.

Whether or not you approve of the NC is entirely up to you, but in this instance you were not lied to. Replacing the NC is no small undertaking. Their job isn't sitting at a table and pounding fists until the company drops a bag of money at our feet. There is a lot of history and experience involved with that job that isn't replaced with a round of training at alpa. The NC takes marching orders from your reps; they don't negotiate a contract to their own whims. If you want change to their direction, get your rep to do it or change your rep! If you're still hellbent on new blood, consider the alternative of adding additional members to the committee. To drop kick the NC is perhaps a little short sighted. Remember where all the power lies in your union, the elected reps. They alone set the direction and goals of the NC.

My survey:
- Industry standard at DOS
- Retro to Aug 2015
- Transition stays w pay protection, tweaked to no less than 4 off as a giveback perhaps
- Defined contribution 10% DOS increasing yoy
- 2% or COLA (if higher) raise for every year after new contract amendable date, DOS+5 and beyond
- industry leading merger and scope (if the company is so sure a merger is not on the table then this should be a zero cost item for them)

.

 

Excellent post, Miz Wiz. Let's not forget to add ability for RSVs to swap RSV days. And maximum of 5 consecutive days on. Hell, let's align everyone's incentives here by making pilots owners of this company. Annual grant of 100sh SAVE to each pilot. Typically makes people work a bit harder toward increasing stock price when that valuation directly affects your bottom line. Ever wonder why executives are so concerned with stock price? Well, not only because the quickest way to lose your job is by losing money for the big investors, but most executives are given stock options and/or grants as a portion of their compensation! Why don't we try and do the same!


Sent from Airbus

 

. So which one of the NC cabal be you? Sounds like PS to me, am I right?

Your defense misses two things. One, this NC DOES have a history and that FAILURE. Two, the reason fhey lied about section six was because they THEY told us that section six was bad as they tried to work their interest based "focused" technique. They used the spectre of "Section SIX" ( say that in your best deep booming movie narrarator voice please) to scare us into accepting their "focused" tactic. "Focused" didn't work, scare tactic did. Hey, they did succed at something.
Oh and one more thing, I say that we have plenty of time to build a new NC. You just admitted that you were starting basically over didnt you.