Search

Notices

Spirit of NKS, Part II

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 08-22-2016, 12:51 PM
  #8141  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Judge Smails's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Position: A320
Posts: 698
Default

Originally Posted by Alphafloor
I kinda disagree. I don't think this obscure "life saving safety concern" would have been dumped on the company if we were a well paid and respected pilot group. I'd bet my savings that if we had annual profit sharing checks we would still be taxiing around on one engine and we would have never got the ALPA memo. Just my 2 cents.
Really? So you think our union safety committee would have willfully overlooked a safety hazard if the company had paid us better and shown us more respect? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
Judge Smails is offline  
Old 08-22-2016, 01:48 PM
  #8142  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Cruise's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Switch, Lever & Light Specialist
Posts: 1,065
Default

Originally Posted by Alphafloor
I kinda disagree. I don't think this obscure "life saving safety concern" would have been dumped on the company if we were a well paid and respected pilot group. I'd bet my savings that if we had annual profit sharing checks we would still be taxiing around on one engine and we would have never got the ALPA memo. Just my 2 cents.
I respect your opinion, but I will also say you're 100% wrong.

This memo has nothing to do with negotiations and everything to do with the safety of our operation.

Safety is NOT negotiable.
Cruise is offline  
Old 08-22-2016, 01:49 PM
  #8143  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 243
Default

Originally Posted by Judge Smails
Really? So you think our union safety committee would have willfully overlooked a safety hazard if the company had paid us better and shown us more respect? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
Yes I do think they would have overlooked it because it is a unrealistic "safety hazard". More likely to get hit by a meteor or be abducted by aliens than not being able to put out the fire.
Alphafloor is offline  
Old 08-22-2016, 02:31 PM
  #8144  
Gets Weekends Off
 
AirbusA321Pilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2016
Posts: 203
Default

Originally Posted by Alphafloor
Yes I do think they would have overlooked it because it is a unrealistic "safety hazard". More likely to get hit by a meteor or be abducted by aliens than not being able to put out the fire.
That has to be one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard in my 23 years in the airlines.
AirbusA321Pilot is offline  
Old 08-22-2016, 02:43 PM
  #8145  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Position: A320 Right
Posts: 378
Default

Originally Posted by The Juice
Uhhhh, they just did. Did you read the Safety Memo about starting an APU for fire protection safety on the taxi in? That's going into an ops memo as we speak and will become policy after that.

It's beautiful because it's a legal action and it forces their hand because it's safety related.
If that's the depth of a legal "work action" (it's not) then it's not very effective.
The brain trust over there is really grasping at straws if all they can come up with is something we should never negotiate anyway (safety).
How is there not more outrage that these guys get raises or bonuses and we don't? Are we so lethargic we have lost the will to even fight a little?
Gunga Din is offline  
Old 08-22-2016, 02:57 PM
  #8146  
ULTP-Ultra Low Tier Pilot
 
The Juice's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,228
Default

Originally Posted by Gunga Din
If that's the depth of a legal "work action" (it's not) then it's not very effective.
The brain trust over there is really grasping at straws if all they can come up with is something we should never negotiate anyway (safety).
How is there not more outrage that these guys get raises or bonuses and we don't? Are we so lethargic we have lost the will to even fight a little?
Gunga. I've made you MEC Chair with complete autonomy over the entire MEC. What changes/events/actions do you propose that will be effective and legal.

But be careful, if you suggest something illegal, you get sent to bed without dinner.
The Juice is offline  
Old 08-22-2016, 03:19 PM
  #8147  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Position: A320 Right
Posts: 378
Default

Originally Posted by The Juice
Gunga. I've made you MEC Chair with complete autonomy over the entire MEC. What changes/events/actions do you propose that will be effective and legal.

But be careful, if you suggest something illegal, you get sent to bed without dinner.
I've never said I was the smartest one at this company but just simply piggybacking on other tried and effective methods at other airlines seems like a start. We don't have to reinvent the wheel here.
In my opinion, how about a nice fat billboard on 171 in Vegas or 190 in Chicago 595 in FLL? "Dear Spirit Passengers-the airline you're about to fly on hasn't given the pilots a raise since 2010 and refuses to negotiate in good faith, enjoy your flight"

Or a continuation of the IAH show of force and info picket. Or how about press releases to the major investment mags and newspapers? Or official suggestions to tripple check all paperwork and never overlook a possible write up? Now if these aren't legal then I retract them. But I would rather see the union lean into this problem a little more forcefully than always back on their heals. We could have had an effective June but our union ran from even the whiff of controversy.
How's that for a start?
Gunga Din is offline  
Old 08-22-2016, 03:34 PM
  #8148  
Gets Weekends Off
 
tomgoodman's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: 767A (Ret)
Posts: 6,248
Default

One reason that safety items are never used as negotiating tools is that you can't stop them once a contract is agreed to. Another reason is that the next time you raise a safety concern, your motives will be questioned.
tomgoodman is offline  
Old 08-22-2016, 04:11 PM
  #8149  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Judge Smails's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Position: A320
Posts: 698
Default

Originally Posted by Alphafloor
Yes I do think they would have overlooked it because it is a unrealistic "safety hazard". More likely to get hit by a meteor or be abducted by aliens than not being able to put out the fire.
The odds of a fire while single engine taxiing are low, but it's far from unrealistic....and yeah, you'd be a schmuck to not care if the second bottle is available to put it out if it does happen.
Judge Smails is offline  
Old 08-22-2016, 04:51 PM
  #8150  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Position: Computer desk
Posts: 118
Default

Originally Posted by Judge Smails
The odds of a fire while single engine taxiing are low, but it's far from unrealistic....and yeah, you'd be a schmuck to not care if the second bottle is available to put it out if it does happen.
Or how a about the genius that re wrote the pneumatic start procedures. After starting #2 at the gate. You now taxi out without the yellow pump running. Your whole career riding on the #2 engine driving hydraulic pump keeping your brakes and steering going till you cross bleed start #1. Brilliant.
leardriver is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
De La Ghetto
Flight Schools and Training
22
11-26-2014 05:41 PM
dl773
Flight Schools and Training
2
06-17-2014 03:03 PM
emj55
Major
8
06-04-2008 03:58 AM
downinthegroove
Regional
2
06-03-2008 05:55 PM
N618FT
Regional
33
11-19-2007 07:28 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices