|
Originally Posted by SeamusTheHound
(Post 2016129)
Where do you get this stuff?
The company DESPERATELY needs this FRMS in order to start a bunch of new ultra-long haul in 2016. Without it they are in a serious bind under the current contract. Why do state with such certainty the impossibility of sending the Neg Comm back if the MEC rejects it? The 45-day negotiations window was arbitrary. Deadlines and other "urgency" measures are just age-old negotiating tactics. I believe the company wanted a quick negotiation because they think Heppner is weak and that they'd need to pay more for the relief they want under a new MC and, most likely, a new Neg Comm. Really, where do you come up with ANY hard and fast restrictions that prevent the MEC from sending the negotiators back to the table? There's no real reason they couldn't spend another month to get things fixed. |
Originally Posted by DashTrash
(Post 2016178)
This not a Section 6 negotiation.
|
Originally Posted by SpecialTracking
(Post 2016185)
Neither was our interim wage adjustment but look how that turned out.
This is too easy. I am voting yes, if we get a vote. |
Originally Posted by SeamusTheHound
(Post 2016129)
Where do you get this stuff?
The company DESPERATELY needs this FRMS in order to start a bunch of new ultra-long haul in 2016. Without it they are in a serious bind under the current contract. Why do state with such certainty the impossibility of sending the Neg Comm back if the MEC rejects it? The 45-day negotiations window was arbitrary. Deadlines and other "urgency" measures are just age-old negotiating tactics. I believe the company wanted a quick negotiation because they think Heppner is weak and that they'd need to pay more for the relief they want under a new MC and, most likely, a new Neg Comm. Really, where do you come up with ANY hard and fast restrictions that prevent the MEC from sending the negotiators back to the table? There's no real reason they couldn't spend another month to get things fixed. I'm not sure where you are coming up with the idea that they will re-engage, but unless you're on the negotiating team or sitting in Willis Tower you're just guessing at that to be true. So far it has been specifically stated that they will NOT be doing that; both by the company and ALPA. It seems you think the negotiating team is somehow unable or unwilling to accurately guage our current leverage and execute on it. This same negotiating team was willing to wait YEARS on the last section 6 because they determined they weren't getting a good enough deal. I trust them that this is the best we can do with what we have right now. And I hope that we don't squander it and look back 2-3 years from now at the amount of money we donated to the company coffers |
Originally Posted by Probe
(Post 2015505)
A senior 756 pilot can easily make more than a bottom feeder 777 pilot in the same seat. Sometimes, a lot more.
The guy that went to the 777 to be on reserve did it because he can say he flew the 777. I have done both. Repeatedly. Sorry. No soup for the reserve commuter on the 777. He chose poorly. If you didn't like them in the first place, the current contract should never have been voted in. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:50 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands