C5 email Aug 11 2022
08-11-2022, 12:36 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 963
C5 email Aug 11 2022
Aug 11, 2022
Council 5 Update
Dear Fellow Council 5 Members,
The MEC will meet in a special session next week to review the results of the survey/polling which just closed. We will possibly have a unique opportunity to address the weak areas in the TA and convert it into a TA 2. There is also the real possibility that the data shows the MEC just how far apart we are from management; and no matter who is sitting at the table, TA 2 likely won’t materialize any time soon.
C-5 Recall
All three of your Council 5 officers face recall resolutions on August 17. How did we get to where we are today? We aren’t quite sure why our choice to be completely transparent with you and give you the same materially relevant information we had with regard to the TA has us facing recall. Said differently – the folks on the MEC who voted to withhold information from their pilots are being lauded in some corners as the gold standard. Think about that for a minute. How does that make sense?
For perspective, it’s barely a year since we got elected, not once, but twice, to our positions. We have always served the pilots of C-5 and all United pilots with honesty, integrity, and the desire to help pilots and the profession. We have always answered every question and concern.
Surveys
We have heard you loud and clear. When the April MEC meeting concluded, we were on our way to polling and surveys. Then this AIP dropped in our laps, which was ultimately passed to the membership for your review and vote. Clearly parts of the TA were out of sync with the goals that would have been generated in any polling data. While the PDR system produces 30K – 40K reports per year, and provides the MEC invaluable data, it still isn’t enough. Surveys more effectively capture the nuances of pilot wants, needs, and sentiments than PDRs alone.
ALPA Governance
ALPA is a bottom up organization, a representative government driven by its members. While we take direction from our respective councils, the MEC will often have more information and insight into a topic that isn’t necessarily open or readily available to all pilots. However, before acting and committing to any vote, we thoughtfully consider all available information, debate and ponder all sides of each topic, including input from our members.
In simple terms, we’re not smarter than any of you, we just have access to more information. This is by design. And you continue to re-elect us because we have a long history of using our best judgement to carefully consider this information and the impact of any vote, not only on the pilots of Council 5, but all United pilots.
Negotiating Process
A common source of confusion and angst may be found in the negotiating process itself. The negotiators are given direction by the MEC as to what to negotiate. For example, In the spring of 2021, the MEC had to decide whether or not to pursue voluntary vaccine pay. Given that nearly every council passed a local resolution demanding vaccine pay like our peers at Delta and American were enjoying, the MEC gave direction to the negotiating committee to engage. The result being the unanimously MEC approved LOA 21-02 “COVID Vaccinations” which paid up to 13 hours of ADD pay for taking the vaccine and submitting a record of it. This LOA exceeded MEC expectations and put over $40M into pilots’ pockets.
Tentative Agreement (TA) 2022
Leading up to the TA, the Negotiating Committee had been given direction in the 2018/2019 timeframe. During 2020 and most of 2021, due to the pandemic there wasn’t much movement on section 6 negotiations. And polling data during a pandemic would have been useless. Once the negotiating momentum regained speed toward the end of 2021, the MEC had to decide:
How much will be enough?
Does the TA contain enough value to send to the pilots for ratification and have the final say on it or not?
Two earlier deals were turned down because there was simply not enough value. As in any agreement, the TA was an exchange of value. It is conservatively valued as an incremental increase of contract costs by +$475M/year, into perpetuity.
Will a shorter deal that allows us to grab some gains now along with the opportunity to reengage with openers only 15 months later be acceptable?
The MEC chair thought the deal rich enough and short enough to bring to the MEC. The MEC voted 15-4 to send it to the pilots.
C-5 was a split vote on the TA, and that matches what we have heard from the council so far. At this point, we ask for council input on the topic:
If +$475M/year isn’t enough, how much richer should it be? In other words, what incremental increase is required before the MEC sends it out for the pilots to decide if it’s enough?
Had both Chris and I both voted “no,” would the three of us be still be subject to a recall effort?
Destruction of the TA and MEC
Some of the NO voters at table took great liberty with the truth when explaining the TA, the negotiating process, and MEC debates, all while accusing anyone that spoke TA facts (reps, negotiators, MEC officers, ALPA legal, P2P volunteers) as “selling” it. While the TA was far from perfect, twisting the truth and smearing hard working ALPA volunteers now tears at the very fabric of our union. Some in the “NO” camp have created distrust in our negotiating process, LEC and MEC representation, and even ALPA-International governance. They choose to destroy the entirety of the TA and simultaneously attempt to destroy the MEC. This is beyond the pale and unacceptable, especially when claiming to be “unionists.”
Junior Pilot Anecdote
It’s disturbing to hear a pilot on the property less than two years explain he’s been told the MEC is “out to screw them, but isn’t sure how.” This distrust is sadly misdirected. The TA wasn’t designed to screw him. Attempting to dismantle the MEC with lies, bizarre interpersonal behavior complaints, and all-around hatred and distrust is an attempt to harm all pilots on the property.
During the last two years, between LOA 20-05 and CARES/PSP 1,2, & 3, the MEC was successful in keeping every pilot employed and created an opportunity for thousands of pilots like our two-year pilot to be hired. During the lead up to LOA 20-05, some of those same reps from “camp disunity“ voted NO when it came to preventing furloughs and saving jobs.
Philosophy and rhetoric like this is clearly derelict and destructive, especially in light of the fact that pilots that were on the 2020 WARN furlough notice list populate just about every council at the airline. The rhetoric from the anti-LOA 20-05 and disunity camp luckily is only a slim vocal minority. No wonder a pilot would think the MEC was out to “screw him” if that’s all they heard over and over again.
Looking Forward
The same forces behind attempting to destroy the MEC are behind the recall motions across several councils, including C-5. These efforts will only cause harm to our pilot group and profession. We ask that you keep your eye on the ball and ignore this noise. We all need to focus on achieving the best contract possible. The fact is, the negotiating committee followed MEC direction. The large majority of the MEC thought the TA worthy of everyone’s input, so it was sent to the membership for ratification. That is the process. Regardless of how you voted, it is important to recognize the process was followed.
The MEC needs mature, effective, experienced leadership. Chris, Phil, and I help provide that leadership. We look forward to hearing from you or seeing you at the August 17 local council 5 meeting.
Sincerely,
[REDACTED FOR APC]
Council 5 Update
Dear Fellow Council 5 Members,
The MEC will meet in a special session next week to review the results of the survey/polling which just closed. We will possibly have a unique opportunity to address the weak areas in the TA and convert it into a TA 2. There is also the real possibility that the data shows the MEC just how far apart we are from management; and no matter who is sitting at the table, TA 2 likely won’t materialize any time soon.
C-5 Recall
All three of your Council 5 officers face recall resolutions on August 17. How did we get to where we are today? We aren’t quite sure why our choice to be completely transparent with you and give you the same materially relevant information we had with regard to the TA has us facing recall. Said differently – the folks on the MEC who voted to withhold information from their pilots are being lauded in some corners as the gold standard. Think about that for a minute. How does that make sense?
For perspective, it’s barely a year since we got elected, not once, but twice, to our positions. We have always served the pilots of C-5 and all United pilots with honesty, integrity, and the desire to help pilots and the profession. We have always answered every question and concern.
Surveys
We have heard you loud and clear. When the April MEC meeting concluded, we were on our way to polling and surveys. Then this AIP dropped in our laps, which was ultimately passed to the membership for your review and vote. Clearly parts of the TA were out of sync with the goals that would have been generated in any polling data. While the PDR system produces 30K – 40K reports per year, and provides the MEC invaluable data, it still isn’t enough. Surveys more effectively capture the nuances of pilot wants, needs, and sentiments than PDRs alone.
ALPA Governance
ALPA is a bottom up organization, a representative government driven by its members. While we take direction from our respective councils, the MEC will often have more information and insight into a topic that isn’t necessarily open or readily available to all pilots. However, before acting and committing to any vote, we thoughtfully consider all available information, debate and ponder all sides of each topic, including input from our members.
In simple terms, we’re not smarter than any of you, we just have access to more information. This is by design. And you continue to re-elect us because we have a long history of using our best judgement to carefully consider this information and the impact of any vote, not only on the pilots of Council 5, but all United pilots.
Negotiating Process
A common source of confusion and angst may be found in the negotiating process itself. The negotiators are given direction by the MEC as to what to negotiate. For example, In the spring of 2021, the MEC had to decide whether or not to pursue voluntary vaccine pay. Given that nearly every council passed a local resolution demanding vaccine pay like our peers at Delta and American were enjoying, the MEC gave direction to the negotiating committee to engage. The result being the unanimously MEC approved LOA 21-02 “COVID Vaccinations” which paid up to 13 hours of ADD pay for taking the vaccine and submitting a record of it. This LOA exceeded MEC expectations and put over $40M into pilots’ pockets.
Tentative Agreement (TA) 2022
Leading up to the TA, the Negotiating Committee had been given direction in the 2018/2019 timeframe. During 2020 and most of 2021, due to the pandemic there wasn’t much movement on section 6 negotiations. And polling data during a pandemic would have been useless. Once the negotiating momentum regained speed toward the end of 2021, the MEC had to decide:
How much will be enough?
Does the TA contain enough value to send to the pilots for ratification and have the final say on it or not?
Two earlier deals were turned down because there was simply not enough value. As in any agreement, the TA was an exchange of value. It is conservatively valued as an incremental increase of contract costs by +$475M/year, into perpetuity.
Will a shorter deal that allows us to grab some gains now along with the opportunity to reengage with openers only 15 months later be acceptable?
The MEC chair thought the deal rich enough and short enough to bring to the MEC. The MEC voted 15-4 to send it to the pilots.
C-5 was a split vote on the TA, and that matches what we have heard from the council so far. At this point, we ask for council input on the topic:
If +$475M/year isn’t enough, how much richer should it be? In other words, what incremental increase is required before the MEC sends it out for the pilots to decide if it’s enough?
Had both Chris and I both voted “no,” would the three of us be still be subject to a recall effort?
Destruction of the TA and MEC
Some of the NO voters at table took great liberty with the truth when explaining the TA, the negotiating process, and MEC debates, all while accusing anyone that spoke TA facts (reps, negotiators, MEC officers, ALPA legal, P2P volunteers) as “selling” it. While the TA was far from perfect, twisting the truth and smearing hard working ALPA volunteers now tears at the very fabric of our union. Some in the “NO” camp have created distrust in our negotiating process, LEC and MEC representation, and even ALPA-International governance. They choose to destroy the entirety of the TA and simultaneously attempt to destroy the MEC. This is beyond the pale and unacceptable, especially when claiming to be “unionists.”
Junior Pilot Anecdote
It’s disturbing to hear a pilot on the property less than two years explain he’s been told the MEC is “out to screw them, but isn’t sure how.” This distrust is sadly misdirected. The TA wasn’t designed to screw him. Attempting to dismantle the MEC with lies, bizarre interpersonal behavior complaints, and all-around hatred and distrust is an attempt to harm all pilots on the property.
During the last two years, between LOA 20-05 and CARES/PSP 1,2, & 3, the MEC was successful in keeping every pilot employed and created an opportunity for thousands of pilots like our two-year pilot to be hired. During the lead up to LOA 20-05, some of those same reps from “camp disunity“ voted NO when it came to preventing furloughs and saving jobs.
Philosophy and rhetoric like this is clearly derelict and destructive, especially in light of the fact that pilots that were on the 2020 WARN furlough notice list populate just about every council at the airline. The rhetoric from the anti-LOA 20-05 and disunity camp luckily is only a slim vocal minority. No wonder a pilot would think the MEC was out to “screw him” if that’s all they heard over and over again.
Looking Forward
The same forces behind attempting to destroy the MEC are behind the recall motions across several councils, including C-5. These efforts will only cause harm to our pilot group and profession. We ask that you keep your eye on the ball and ignore this noise. We all need to focus on achieving the best contract possible. The fact is, the negotiating committee followed MEC direction. The large majority of the MEC thought the TA worthy of everyone’s input, so it was sent to the membership for ratification. That is the process. Regardless of how you voted, it is important to recognize the process was followed.
The MEC needs mature, effective, experienced leadership. Chris, Phil, and I help provide that leadership. We look forward to hearing from you or seeing you at the August 17 local council 5 meeting.
Sincerely,
[REDACTED FOR APC]
08-11-2022, 12:44 PM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2018
Posts: 432
Originally Posted by fadec
Aug 11, 2022
Council 5 Update
Dear Fellow Council 5 Members,
The MEC will meet in a special session next week to review the results of the survey/polling which just closed. We will possibly have a unique opportunity to address the weak areas in the TA and convert it into a TA 2. There is also the real possibility that the data shows the MEC just how far apart we are from management; and no matter who is sitting at the table, TA 2 likely won’t materialize any time soon.
C-5 Recall
All three of your Council 5 officers face recall resolutions on August 17. How did we get to where we are today? We aren’t quite sure why our choice to be completely transparent with you and give you the same materially relevant information we had with regard to the TA has us facing recall. Said differently – the folks on the MEC who voted to withhold information from their pilots are being lauded in some corners as the gold standard. Think about that for a minute. How does that make sense?
For perspective, it’s barely a year since we got elected, not once, but twice, to our positions. We have always served the pilots of C-5 and all United pilots with honesty, integrity, and the desire to help pilots and the profession. We have always answered every question and concern.
Surveys
We have heard you loud and clear. When the April MEC meeting concluded, we were on our way to polling and surveys. Then this AIP dropped in our laps, which was ultimately passed to the membership for your review and vote. Clearly parts of the TA were out of sync with the goals that would have been generated in any polling data. While the PDR system produces 30K – 40K reports per year, and provides the MEC invaluable data, it still isn’t enough. Surveys more effectively capture the nuances of pilot wants, needs, and sentiments than PDRs alone.
ALPA Governance
ALPA is a bottom up organization, a representative government driven by its members. While we take direction from our respective councils, the MEC will often have more information and insight into a topic that isn’t necessarily open or readily available to all pilots. However, before acting and committing to any vote, we thoughtfully consider all available information, debate and ponder all sides of each topic, including input from our members.
In simple terms, we’re not smarter than any of you, we just have access to more information. This is by design. And you continue to re-elect us because we have a long history of using our best judgement to carefully consider this information and the impact of any vote, not only on the pilots of Council 5, but all United pilots.
Negotiating Process
A common source of confusion and angst may be found in the negotiating process itself. The negotiators are given direction by the MEC as to what to negotiate. For example, In the spring of 2021, the MEC had to decide whether or not to pursue voluntary vaccine pay. Given that nearly every council passed a local resolution demanding vaccine pay like our peers at Delta and American were enjoying, the MEC gave direction to the negotiating committee to engage. The result being the unanimously MEC approved LOA 21-02 “COVID Vaccinations” which paid up to 13 hours of ADD pay for taking the vaccine and submitting a record of it. This LOA exceeded MEC expectations and put over $40M into pilots’ pockets.
Tentative Agreement (TA) 2022
Leading up to the TA, the Negotiating Committee had been given direction in the 2018/2019 timeframe. During 2020 and most of 2021, due to the pandemic there wasn’t much movement on section 6 negotiations. And polling data during a pandemic would have been useless. Once the negotiating momentum regained speed toward the end of 2021, the MEC had to decide:
How much will be enough?
Does the TA contain enough value to send to the pilots for ratification and have the final say on it or not?
Two earlier deals were turned down because there was simply not enough value. As in any agreement, the TA was an exchange of value. It is conservatively valued as an incremental increase of contract costs by +$475M/year, into perpetuity.
Will a shorter deal that allows us to grab some gains now along with the opportunity to reengage with openers only 15 months later be acceptable?
The MEC chair thought the deal rich enough and short enough to bring to the MEC. The MEC voted 15-4 to send it to the pilots.
C-5 was a split vote on the TA, and that matches what we have heard from the council so far. At this point, we ask for council input on the topic:
If +$475M/year isn’t enough, how much richer should it be? In other words, what incremental increase is required before the MEC sends it out for the pilots to decide if it’s enough?
Had both Chris and I both voted “no,” would the three of us be still be subject to a recall effort?
Destruction of the TA and MEC
Some of the NO voters at table took great liberty with the truth when explaining the TA, the negotiating process, and MEC debates, all while accusing anyone that spoke TA facts (reps, negotiators, MEC officers, ALPA legal, P2P volunteers) as “selling” it. While the TA was far from perfect, twisting the truth and smearing hard working ALPA volunteers now tears at the very fabric of our union. Some in the “NO” camp have created distrust in our negotiating process, LEC and MEC representation, and even ALPA-International governance. They choose to destroy the entirety of the TA and simultaneously attempt to destroy the MEC. This is beyond the pale and unacceptable, especially when claiming to be “unionists.”
Junior Pilot Anecdote
It’s disturbing to hear a pilot on the property less than two years explain he’s been told the MEC is “out to screw them, but isn’t sure how.” This distrust is sadly misdirected. The TA wasn’t designed to screw him. Attempting to dismantle the MEC with lies, bizarre interpersonal behavior complaints, and all-around hatred and distrust is an attempt to harm all pilots on the property.
During the last two years, between LOA 20-05 and CARES/PSP 1,2, & 3, the MEC was successful in keeping every pilot employed and created an opportunity for thousands of pilots like our two-year pilot to be hired. During the lead up to LOA 20-05, some of those same reps from “camp disunity“ voted NO when it came to preventing furloughs and saving jobs.
Philosophy and rhetoric like this is clearly derelict and destructive, especially in light of the fact that pilots that were on the 2020 WARN furlough notice list populate just about every council at the airline. The rhetoric from the anti-LOA 20-05 and disunity camp luckily is only a slim vocal minority. No wonder a pilot would think the MEC was out to “screw him” if that’s all they heard over and over again.
Looking Forward
The same forces behind attempting to destroy the MEC are behind the recall motions across several councils, including C-5. These efforts will only cause harm to our pilot group and profession. We ask that you keep your eye on the ball and ignore this noise. We all need to focus on achieving the best contract possible. The fact is, the negotiating committee followed MEC direction. The large majority of the MEC thought the TA worthy of everyone’s input, so it was sent to the membership for ratification. That is the process. Regardless of how you voted, it is important to recognize the process was followed.
The MEC needs mature, effective, experienced leadership. Chris, Phil, and I help provide that leadership. We look forward to hearing from you or seeing you at the August 17 local council 5 meeting.
Sincerely,
[REDACTED FOR APC]
Council 5 Update
Dear Fellow Council 5 Members,
The MEC will meet in a special session next week to review the results of the survey/polling which just closed. We will possibly have a unique opportunity to address the weak areas in the TA and convert it into a TA 2. There is also the real possibility that the data shows the MEC just how far apart we are from management; and no matter who is sitting at the table, TA 2 likely won’t materialize any time soon.
C-5 Recall
All three of your Council 5 officers face recall resolutions on August 17. How did we get to where we are today? We aren’t quite sure why our choice to be completely transparent with you and give you the same materially relevant information we had with regard to the TA has us facing recall. Said differently – the folks on the MEC who voted to withhold information from their pilots are being lauded in some corners as the gold standard. Think about that for a minute. How does that make sense?
For perspective, it’s barely a year since we got elected, not once, but twice, to our positions. We have always served the pilots of C-5 and all United pilots with honesty, integrity, and the desire to help pilots and the profession. We have always answered every question and concern.
Surveys
We have heard you loud and clear. When the April MEC meeting concluded, we were on our way to polling and surveys. Then this AIP dropped in our laps, which was ultimately passed to the membership for your review and vote. Clearly parts of the TA were out of sync with the goals that would have been generated in any polling data. While the PDR system produces 30K – 40K reports per year, and provides the MEC invaluable data, it still isn’t enough. Surveys more effectively capture the nuances of pilot wants, needs, and sentiments than PDRs alone.
ALPA Governance
ALPA is a bottom up organization, a representative government driven by its members. While we take direction from our respective councils, the MEC will often have more information and insight into a topic that isn’t necessarily open or readily available to all pilots. However, before acting and committing to any vote, we thoughtfully consider all available information, debate and ponder all sides of each topic, including input from our members.
In simple terms, we’re not smarter than any of you, we just have access to more information. This is by design. And you continue to re-elect us because we have a long history of using our best judgement to carefully consider this information and the impact of any vote, not only on the pilots of Council 5, but all United pilots.
Negotiating Process
A common source of confusion and angst may be found in the negotiating process itself. The negotiators are given direction by the MEC as to what to negotiate. For example, In the spring of 2021, the MEC had to decide whether or not to pursue voluntary vaccine pay. Given that nearly every council passed a local resolution demanding vaccine pay like our peers at Delta and American were enjoying, the MEC gave direction to the negotiating committee to engage. The result being the unanimously MEC approved LOA 21-02 “COVID Vaccinations” which paid up to 13 hours of ADD pay for taking the vaccine and submitting a record of it. This LOA exceeded MEC expectations and put over $40M into pilots’ pockets.
Tentative Agreement (TA) 2022
Leading up to the TA, the Negotiating Committee had been given direction in the 2018/2019 timeframe. During 2020 and most of 2021, due to the pandemic there wasn’t much movement on section 6 negotiations. And polling data during a pandemic would have been useless. Once the negotiating momentum regained speed toward the end of 2021, the MEC had to decide:
How much will be enough?
Does the TA contain enough value to send to the pilots for ratification and have the final say on it or not?
Two earlier deals were turned down because there was simply not enough value. As in any agreement, the TA was an exchange of value. It is conservatively valued as an incremental increase of contract costs by +$475M/year, into perpetuity.
Will a shorter deal that allows us to grab some gains now along with the opportunity to reengage with openers only 15 months later be acceptable?
The MEC chair thought the deal rich enough and short enough to bring to the MEC. The MEC voted 15-4 to send it to the pilots.
C-5 was a split vote on the TA, and that matches what we have heard from the council so far. At this point, we ask for council input on the topic:
If +$475M/year isn’t enough, how much richer should it be? In other words, what incremental increase is required before the MEC sends it out for the pilots to decide if it’s enough?
Had both Chris and I both voted “no,” would the three of us be still be subject to a recall effort?
Destruction of the TA and MEC
Some of the NO voters at table took great liberty with the truth when explaining the TA, the negotiating process, and MEC debates, all while accusing anyone that spoke TA facts (reps, negotiators, MEC officers, ALPA legal, P2P volunteers) as “selling” it. While the TA was far from perfect, twisting the truth and smearing hard working ALPA volunteers now tears at the very fabric of our union. Some in the “NO” camp have created distrust in our negotiating process, LEC and MEC representation, and even ALPA-International governance. They choose to destroy the entirety of the TA and simultaneously attempt to destroy the MEC. This is beyond the pale and unacceptable, especially when claiming to be “unionists.”
Junior Pilot Anecdote
It’s disturbing to hear a pilot on the property less than two years explain he’s been told the MEC is “out to screw them, but isn’t sure how.” This distrust is sadly misdirected. The TA wasn’t designed to screw him. Attempting to dismantle the MEC with lies, bizarre interpersonal behavior complaints, and all-around hatred and distrust is an attempt to harm all pilots on the property.
During the last two years, between LOA 20-05 and CARES/PSP 1,2, & 3, the MEC was successful in keeping every pilot employed and created an opportunity for thousands of pilots like our two-year pilot to be hired. During the lead up to LOA 20-05, some of those same reps from “camp disunity“ voted NO when it came to preventing furloughs and saving jobs.
Philosophy and rhetoric like this is clearly derelict and destructive, especially in light of the fact that pilots that were on the 2020 WARN furlough notice list populate just about every council at the airline. The rhetoric from the anti-LOA 20-05 and disunity camp luckily is only a slim vocal minority. No wonder a pilot would think the MEC was out to “screw him” if that’s all they heard over and over again.
Looking Forward
The same forces behind attempting to destroy the MEC are behind the recall motions across several councils, including C-5. These efforts will only cause harm to our pilot group and profession. We ask that you keep your eye on the ball and ignore this noise. We all need to focus on achieving the best contract possible. The fact is, the negotiating committee followed MEC direction. The large majority of the MEC thought the TA worthy of everyone’s input, so it was sent to the membership for ratification. That is the process. Regardless of how you voted, it is important to recognize the process was followed.
The MEC needs mature, effective, experienced leadership. Chris, Phil, and I help provide that leadership. We look forward to hearing from you or seeing you at the August 17 local council 5 meeting.
Sincerely,
[REDACTED FOR APC]
also, screw Council 12.”
🙄
recall these jokers. I can’t believe how badly they missed the point. “How much richer should it be?”
The pay rates are the least offensive part of this turd. It’s like they can’t comprehend at all that people would give a damn about quality of life.
08-11-2022, 08:23 PM
#5
Banned
Joined APC: May 2022
Posts: 411
DAL LTD comparison is a joke
DAL LTD plan is better than UAL TA and that is under the current DAL contract. What a disgrace and they are still trying to sell it. 2 seats on the LTD committee woop teee dooo.Cmon guys get your sh*t in one bag and start negotiating a REAL TA
08-12-2022, 04:16 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 216
Interesting that in trying to make a case that they shouldn’t be recalled, they say that they provided direction to the NC…
so if it’s not the NC’s fault, then it’s the MECs fault, right? Sooooo recall would be good then?
so if it’s not the NC’s fault, then it’s the MECs fault, right? Sooooo recall would be good then?
08-12-2022, 06:28 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2022
Position: 787 FO
Posts: 550
Originally Posted by fadec
We aren’t quite sure why our choice to be completely transparent with you and give you the same materially relevant information we had with regard to the TA has us facing recall. Said differently – the folks on the MEC who voted to withhold information from their pilots are being lauded in some corners as the gold standard.
08-12-2022, 10:00 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,803
Originally Posted by jerryleber
This is one of the most tortured euphemisms I have ever seen. So they think voting no on a horrendous TA is "withholding information from their pilots." These so-called reps have really lost it and one of them even voted no even though he actually supported it. At least he understood he was a representative of pilots and not himself.
Has the company has finally broken ALPA? If the recall brigade isn't very very careful to have viable candidates that can step into the LEC positions as turn key, up to speed replacements then TA1 is going to look like a dream in comparison. I don't disagree with the recall effort, but simply marching on the castle with torches and pitchforks doesn't change the reality of where we are as a group.
I hope that before the resolution to recall any rep is floored, the sponsor of the resolution has names of those willing and capable of serving (without the need for ALPA 101 OJT). We have the ability to inflict a far worse outcome on ourselves.
08-12-2022, 10:19 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 216
Originally Posted by awax
Has the company has finally broken ALPA? If the recall brigade isn't very very careful to have viable candidates that can step into the LEC positions as turn key, up to speed replacements then TA1 is going to look like a dream in comparison. I don't disagree with the recall effort, but simply marching on the castle with torches and pitchforks doesn't change the reality of where we are as a group.
I hope that before the resolution to recall any rep is floored, the sponsor of the resolution has names of those willing and capable of serving (without the need for ALPA 101 OJT). We have the ability to inflict a far worse outcome on ourselves.
I hope that before the resolution to recall any rep is floored, the sponsor of the resolution has names of those willing and capable of serving (without the need for ALPA 101 OJT). We have the ability to inflict a far worse outcome on ourselves.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
antiguogrumete
Your Photos and Videos
0
04-22-2022 03:48 AM
