Help stamp out Scope Relief Rumors.
12-20-2014 | 03:51 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
Likes: 0
Those who would entertain the notion of relief must be living under a rock. From "you haven't sacrificed enough" and "we don't need the unions for this merger" to the continued trampling of our qol I simply shake my head in amazement.
12-20-2014 | 08:40 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
From: 737 FO
12-21-2014 | 06:38 AM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,159
Likes: 1
zullo factor
This reminds me of when the company, lets call it Continental Airlines approached our scheduling committee chairman to negotiate something called "furlough relief", but when you read the language it was actually "scope relief" and this was disguised by a term called "Joint Venture Flying".
All of that said, the company wanted the MEC to approve this side letter to allow about 100 pilots to not get furloughed, but with no actual promise of never furloughing, and in exchange we would give away scope. To make this sound even more interesting the company wanted the MEC to consider this to be something that the pilots would not ratify.
Now here's where it gets fun, the company would only let the MEC read the letter at an MEC meeting and would not allow MEC reps to get further information from outside counsel or even show it to the pilots or even bring the letter from the meeting. You were required to read it, not take any pictures or copies of it, and turn it back in. Each MEC officer was given a numbered copy and had to turn in that copy. We got one hour to consider it and vote on it.
Nuts right?
Well, it failed to pass and then three months later it was brought out again. Doom and gloom were bantered about and it still failed. One scheduling chairman resigned over it and one negotiating committee member ran angrily out of the room. This member was subsequently removed from the NC at the next MEC meeting.
All the while, the CAL MEC had never actually approved these discussions and were unaware that the MEC Chairman had authorized these negotiations.
A few of the same people are still in power on the company side, they now work in Chicago. I have two questions: One: Can we trust the MEC? Two: who is the weakest link on the negotiating committee? We don't need another Zullo, I mean Judas.....
All of that said, the company wanted the MEC to approve this side letter to allow about 100 pilots to not get furloughed, but with no actual promise of never furloughing, and in exchange we would give away scope. To make this sound even more interesting the company wanted the MEC to consider this to be something that the pilots would not ratify.
Now here's where it gets fun, the company would only let the MEC read the letter at an MEC meeting and would not allow MEC reps to get further information from outside counsel or even show it to the pilots or even bring the letter from the meeting. You were required to read it, not take any pictures or copies of it, and turn it back in. Each MEC officer was given a numbered copy and had to turn in that copy. We got one hour to consider it and vote on it.
Nuts right?
Well, it failed to pass and then three months later it was brought out again. Doom and gloom were bantered about and it still failed. One scheduling chairman resigned over it and one negotiating committee member ran angrily out of the room. This member was subsequently removed from the NC at the next MEC meeting.
All the while, the CAL MEC had never actually approved these discussions and were unaware that the MEC Chairman had authorized these negotiations.
A few of the same people are still in power on the company side, they now work in Chicago. I have two questions: One: Can we trust the MEC? Two: who is the weakest link on the negotiating committee? We don't need another Zullo, I mean Judas.....
12-21-2014 | 09:31 AM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,823
Likes: 168
From: window seat
This reminds me of when the company, lets call it Continental Airlines approached our scheduling committee chairman to negotiate something called "furlough relief", but when you read the language it was actually "scope relief" and this was disguised by a term called "Joint Venture Flying".
All of that said, the company wanted the MEC to approve this side letter to allow about 100 pilots to not get furloughed, but with no actual promise of never furloughing, and in exchange we would give away scope. To make this sound even more interesting the company wanted the MEC to consider this to be something that the pilots would not ratify.
Now here's where it gets fun, the company would only let the MEC read the letter at an MEC meeting and would not allow MEC reps to get further information from outside counsel or even show it to the pilots or even bring the letter from the meeting. You were required to read it, not take any pictures or copies of it, and turn it back in. Each MEC officer was given a numbered copy and had to turn in that copy. We got one hour to consider it and vote on it.
Nuts right?
Well, it failed to pass and then three months later it was brought out again. Doom and gloom were bantered about and it still failed. One scheduling chairman resigned over it and one negotiating committee member ran angrily out of the room. This member was subsequently removed from the NC at the next MEC meeting.
All the while, the CAL MEC had never actually approved these discussions and were unaware that the MEC Chairman had authorized these negotiations.
A few of the same people are still in power on the company side, they now work in Chicago. I have two questions: One: Can we trust the MEC? Two: who is the weakest link on the negotiating committee? We don't need another Zullo, I mean Judas.....
All of that said, the company wanted the MEC to approve this side letter to allow about 100 pilots to not get furloughed, but with no actual promise of never furloughing, and in exchange we would give away scope. To make this sound even more interesting the company wanted the MEC to consider this to be something that the pilots would not ratify.
Now here's where it gets fun, the company would only let the MEC read the letter at an MEC meeting and would not allow MEC reps to get further information from outside counsel or even show it to the pilots or even bring the letter from the meeting. You were required to read it, not take any pictures or copies of it, and turn it back in. Each MEC officer was given a numbered copy and had to turn in that copy. We got one hour to consider it and vote on it.
Nuts right?
Well, it failed to pass and then three months later it was brought out again. Doom and gloom were bantered about and it still failed. One scheduling chairman resigned over it and one negotiating committee member ran angrily out of the room. This member was subsequently removed from the NC at the next MEC meeting.
All the while, the CAL MEC had never actually approved these discussions and were unaware that the MEC Chairman had authorized these negotiations.
A few of the same people are still in power on the company side, they now work in Chicago. I have two questions: One: Can we trust the MEC? Two: who is the weakest link on the negotiating committee? We don't need another Zullo, I mean Judas.....
Kudos for those that saw through the bull and stood up to it.
12-21-2014 | 01:58 PM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,032
Likes: 18
This reminds me of when the company, lets call it Continental Airlines approached our scheduling committee chairman to negotiate something called "furlough relief", but when you read the language it was actually "scope relief" and this was disguised by a term called "Joint Venture Flying".
All of that said, the company wanted the MEC to approve this side letter to allow about 100 pilots to not get furloughed, but with no actual promise of never furloughing, and in exchange we would give away scope. To make this sound even more interesting the company wanted the MEC to consider this to be something that the pilots would not ratify.
Now here's where it gets fun, the company would only let the MEC read the letter at an MEC meeting and would not allow MEC reps to get further information from outside counsel or even show it to the pilots or even bring the letter from the meeting. You were required to read it, not take any pictures or copies of it, and turn it back in. Each MEC officer was given a numbered copy and had to turn in that copy. We got one hour to consider it and vote on it.
Nuts right?
Well, it failed to pass and then three months later it was brought out again. Doom and gloom were bantered about and it still failed. One scheduling chairman resigned over it and one negotiating committee member ran angrily out of the room. This member was subsequently removed from the NC at the next MEC meeting.
All the while, the CAL MEC had never actually approved these discussions and were unaware that the MEC Chairman had authorized these negotiations.
A few of the same people are still in power on the company side, they now work in Chicago. I have two questions: One: Can we trust the MEC? Two: who is the weakest link on the negotiating committee? We don't need another Zullo, I mean Judas.....
All of that said, the company wanted the MEC to approve this side letter to allow about 100 pilots to not get furloughed, but with no actual promise of never furloughing, and in exchange we would give away scope. To make this sound even more interesting the company wanted the MEC to consider this to be something that the pilots would not ratify.
Now here's where it gets fun, the company would only let the MEC read the letter at an MEC meeting and would not allow MEC reps to get further information from outside counsel or even show it to the pilots or even bring the letter from the meeting. You were required to read it, not take any pictures or copies of it, and turn it back in. Each MEC officer was given a numbered copy and had to turn in that copy. We got one hour to consider it and vote on it.
Nuts right?
Well, it failed to pass and then three months later it was brought out again. Doom and gloom were bantered about and it still failed. One scheduling chairman resigned over it and one negotiating committee member ran angrily out of the room. This member was subsequently removed from the NC at the next MEC meeting.
All the while, the CAL MEC had never actually approved these discussions and were unaware that the MEC Chairman had authorized these negotiations.
A few of the same people are still in power on the company side, they now work in Chicago. I have two questions: One: Can we trust the MEC? Two: who is the weakest link on the negotiating committee? We don't need another Zullo, I mean Judas.....
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
