MEC TPA Vote
02-28-2012 | 08:15 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Rumor has it that the 737 will replace the 756 on all of the west coast-Hawaii city pairs. TPA 5 makes it easier, if that's the real plan. As an LAX 756 F/O bumped from 737 Cap when the fleet was parked, seeing this happen while unable to bid LAX 737 Cap is very aggravating.
It's past time to motivate management to get the JCBA done.
It's past time to motivate management to get the JCBA done.
I think the company's plans to reallocate flying instead of completing a jcba is short sighted and another insult to the pilots (especially the UAL side). The only winners in a reallocation are commuters from opposing hubs. Everyone else, with the exception of wb pilots and Guam crews will be negatively affected by the company's act. I believe the union saw this and did what they could to mitigate damage.
02-28-2012 | 08:25 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
Likes: 0
In the end it isn't about commuters, hubs, extending TPAs. It's about a culture of chronic and inexorable wearing down of the employees so that they just give up. Lorenzo started it and although it let up a bit once, it's back with a vengeance now.
Last edited by APC225; 02-28-2012 at 05:11 PM.
02-28-2012 | 08:34 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 3
From: The GF of FUPM
I knew a guy whose father was in upper level management at UAL during the ESOP days and beyond. His dad hated unions to his marrow and loved nothing more than sticking a finger in labors eye every chance he got. It was corp culture to screw the pilots in particular since they owned the majority of the airline. Tilton was this guys wet dream, and now Smisek is following his lead. I believe that screwing us (L-UAL) was part of the plan and they are enjoying it. It will be interesting to see how we, as a combined group stand up for ourselves in the coming months. So far, I'm disappointed in the lack of resolve and anger displayed by some of the troops on both sides of the fence. It's beyond embarrassing. I feel like I'm flying with "The Stepford Pilots".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stepford_Wives
Last edited by oldmako; 02-28-2012 at 11:06 AM.
02-28-2012 | 02:57 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
From: Cal reserve..the gift that keeps on giving
02-29-2012 | 05:34 AM
#27
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 15
From: 737 CAPT
The TPA did not expire. Essentially it was like our contract: amendable. There were terminable portions of the TPA that either side could opt out of by written notice. Until that notice came, ALL PORTIONS OF THE TPA REMAINED IN FULL FORCE.
The company could have simply notified ALPA in writing that it was terminating the provisions having to do with domiciles, flying ratios, furlough protections. Then the company could have done whatever it wanted essentially. While not the greatest outcome for any of us, some protections remain in place as of now.
02-29-2012 | 02:06 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
I don't know if this makes it any easier as the company had the rights to do this already.
I think the company's plans to reallocate flying instead of completing a jcba is short sighted and another insult to the pilots (especially the UAL side). The only winners in a reallocation are commuters from opposing hubs. Everyone else, with the exception of wb pilots and Guam crews will be negatively affected by the company's act. I believe the union saw this and did what they could to mitigate damage.
I think the company's plans to reallocate flying instead of completing a jcba is short sighted and another insult to the pilots (especially the UAL side). The only winners in a reallocation are commuters from opposing hubs. Everyone else, with the exception of wb pilots and Guam crews will be negatively affected by the company's act. I believe the union saw this and did what they could to mitigate damage.
IMO, it's telling that UCH wouldn't agree to make all TPA provisions expire/terminable at JCBA ratification instead of on a future date, assuming ALPA was pushing for that. Maybe their plans don't include a JCBA before, say, next spring. Given that work rules have taken a year and aren't done yet, they could drag out scope and pay for another year. By which time they'll be enjoying synergies out the wazoo and may have even less motivation to get the JCBA deal done, or even to extend the TPA provisions again. I hope I'm wrong, but every time I think it can't get any worse, it does!
02-29-2012 | 02:26 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
I was in ground school today. G.F. said bid will be out thurs or fri. 100 to 200 openings not sure the actual amount. ORD, DEN, SFO bases with LAX getting bigger. They feel 80% of the openings at those new bases will be filled by people who want to go, the other 20% will be filled with TDY. He said no one will be forced to move.
02-29-2012 | 02:43 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
I was in ground school today. G.F. said bid will be out thurs or fri. 100 to 200 openings not sure the actual amount. ORD, DEN, SFO bases with LAX getting bigger. They feel 80% of the openings at those new bases will be filled by people who want to go, the other 20% will be filled with TDY. He said no one will be forced to move.
I'll bet their wet dream is that most of the pilots will make lateral moves in the same fleet/seat so the transition training load won't go through the roof, and also keep the follow-on displacement letters to a minimum.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
