MEC Meeting?
11-30-2015 | 09:52 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
From: SFO Guppy CA
Sorry for the dumb question, but think that I missed something. I was under the impression that it was 16%, 3%, 2%. Where did the 13% come from? Reliable source? I know on the other thread, they were saying that it's only 13% because it was 16% above 2015 rates. Not the 2016 rates.
11-30-2015 | 09:53 AM
#13
Banned
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,282
Likes: 0
From: A320 Cap
Sorry for the dumb question, but think that I missed something. I was under the impression that it was 16%, 3%, 2%. Where did the 13% come from? Reliable source? I know on the other thread, they were saying that it's only 13% because it was 16% above 2015 rates. Not the 2016 rates.
just poking a little fun....
11-30-2015 | 09:57 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
From: SFO Guppy CA
I guess that my question is why would it be the 2015 rates? Since this clearly wouldn't ratify and be effective until on or after 1/1/2016. Logic would lead me to think that the 2016 rates would be where the additive would be applied.
11-30-2015 | 10:07 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
From: SFO Guppy CA
I apologize, I freaking typed wrong. It would be 13% over 2016 rates, or 16% over today's rates. The 13% is coming from those that are already factoring in the 3% we are due to get January 1. My grassy knoll theory is it's an attempt to make the raise sound smaller to promote their position of a NO vote. Kind of like Ted Cruz calling the Planned Parenthood shooter a transgender leftist.
just poking a little fun....
just poking a little fun....
11-30-2015 | 10:09 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,639
Likes: 0
I sure hope they consider the final language very carfully and then determine IF it warrants their approval and our subsequent vote.
If the actual language does not meet the criteria the MEC gave the negotiating committee or reflect the specifics agreed upon in the AIP I sure hope they send it back.
If the actual language does not meet the criteria the MEC gave the negotiating committee or reflect the specifics agreed upon in the AIP I sure hope they send it back.
11-30-2015 | 10:24 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,750
Likes: 0
From: 737 CA
11-30-2015 | 11:25 AM
#19
Banned
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,282
Likes: 0
From: A320 Cap
I sure hope they consider the final language very carfully and then determine IF it warrants their approval and our subsequent vote.
If the actual language does not meet the criteria the MEC gave the negotiating committee or reflect the specifics agreed upon in the AIP I sure hope they send it back.
If the actual language does not meet the criteria the MEC gave the negotiating committee or reflect the specifics agreed upon in the AIP I sure hope they send it back.
So far, according to the rumors, it meets the MEC criteria. No scope concessions was the big one.
11-30-2015 | 11:25 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,209
Likes: 6
From: 777
I think, even if we go to regular contract, it will be much quicker than the 4-6 years people are bandying about. On the order of months, my opinion.
Then again, it might pass....
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
