captnate702

Section 20 is currently less than three pages. Everybody has acknowledged that the new section 20 is going to be at least 15-20 pages long with all of which are filled with limitations on management. That’s not good enough for Robles. I’ve been told the key provision being haggled over is already better than what any legacy has and Robles says that’s not good enough. He wants true industry leading protections for instructor jobs. Again, that’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it is making perfect the enemy of good.

if better than legacy protections is not good enough for Robles then yes I do blame Robles for it taking a year to get this one section done.

Captainbfv

Are you assuming that's the case? Or are you saying that's the case?

tom11011

Before I answer your question, tell me if it would make a difference in your point of view. For example, if I tell you that yes the company is trying to take something from it, would you then support the continued negotiation on that section? Your default position appears to be that enough is enough on that section without knowing what’s holding it up.

captnate702

do you believe that the union should not “give up” anything in the contract negotiations? That if 99% of the changes are positive, but 1% of the changes are negative then the contract is concessionary?

I ask because I know for a fact (I have heard and seen Robles tell others) that he will not put a single “backwards” provision in the contract.

tom11011

Those who voted for him trust him to negotiate the best contract he can. I want him to take whatever time he sees fit to accomplish this goal leaving as little as he can on the table. We are dealing with a hostile management that is eager to take advantage of inpatient pilots. When it’s time we will know. Personally I think we are a year or so out, I suppose that can change with a favorable MWD ruling. It’s not uncommon for two sides in a negotiation to start at the extreme ends and move inward. But I don’t want him to just give up to satisfy inpatient pilots, that’s what the company wants. That’s how we have the contract we have now. If he just gives in, the same complaining pilots will just complain he got us a bad contract and be ****ed off even more.

Captainbfv

IF the company was asking for a regressive or absolutely concessionary thing then first I would have to know what exactly that is, and what has the union proposed. But there lies the issue, I do know what's holding up this section. That's like saying anything else that's not 0% unstacking is concessionary. If the company was asking the union to allow for ALL instructors to be contractors? That would be to an extent a concession, mainly bc we have so many of our pilots now teaching. But in reality there is no language that prevents the company from doing that now. If the company offers lets say 80% will be our pilots, and 20% contractors, then no that's not a concession. If the company tells the union that it has no business in deciding who they can assign as a LCA, APD or instructor; again, that's not a concession. As always, I suggest people dig around and talk to more involved and you'll find that saying the company wants concessions is quite disingenuous.

captnate702

This exactly. Management has already offered BETTER than legacy protections so our pilots can keep their jobs. Management could hire out the vast majority of training and save millions, but they haven’t since 2016.

Andrew is being a stubborn a$$ on section 20 and it’s just another example of his ineptitude and grandiose belief in his own grandeur. As if he hasn’t lost enough credibility with the pilot group, he’s still shooting himself in the foot.

Of course Tom will say it’s worth waiting 1-2 more years on section 20 if that means Andrew can get management to only out source 50% instead of outsourcing 52%. That is Tom logic for you: “As long as it takes to get the best contract possible.” That’s what Tom says. So spending another 1-2 years on section 20 to get 2% less out sourcing is smart negotiating - how stupid is that?

Tom do you see how stupid your platitudes are when you actually apply them to the real world???

Captainbfv

Here's another thing that Tom and many continue to dismiss or refuse to see. During the election Robles bragged and stated MULTIPLE TIMES how great the negotiating team at the time was, including Mike Urban. He told me multiple times in private that all involved were great! And he couldn't have asked for another team.

Then what happened? TWO negotiators step down and clearly state WHY they were resigning. S.H stated that he was under utilized, J.A stepped down and pointed to the issue "The leadership". What does Robles do shortly after? Removes R.J after he blew the whistle on corruption and other things, not to mention A.R, J.Rwood, and K. S were colluding to retaliate against R.J on trumped up charges? You could talk to the company side, and OUR side at the time, and they ALL SAID THE SAME THING.... "A.R doesn't know what he's doing!", "it's all or nothing with him", "He undoes any progress made bc he tries to cram in something last minute, or changes his mind after agreeing on something".

So again, what's the only variable here? You guessed it! A.R!! He comepletely changed the negotiators, and yet, sec 20 drags everything. Even J. Owens has argued with A.R for refusing to move forward on the company's "better than American" offers. The NMB mediator has even called out A.R recently for his BS, which brings up another point of contension... Why is A.R still in the room?

Tom or anyone stating that the "pilot group decided to keep Robles" is also a "half-truth"... Why do I say that? Remember all those votes that were found later, not counted and should have?!! I'm not saying all were for J.R, I'm simply saying, if they would've been counted? Could A.R have lost? Or won in a landslide. Bc we know for a fact HE BARELY made it over the finish line.

So Tom and a few others might want to keep finding excuses, or reasons to "win" the argument, but I've stated absolute facts, and I didn't get them from a vacuum. I got them by talking to many many people that are on BOTH SIDES of this argument (Company & Union representation). If all you do is talk to A.R, his lackies, his poxies or cheerleaders, well shoot, you might find yourself thinking that he's like Trump and the whole establishment is trying to get him bc they are terrified of him. Just my 2 cents.

pipercub

Andrew may very well being stuburn, but nothing but manangemet making off the record statements. Most of the time by people that are not even in the room or have zero input. Who gains by a naritive that the union is asking for to much thats the problem. ONLY thing the company as ever put out officially is the flier the sent in the mail. Maybe yours said something different than mine, but if that is what the company thinks what we should be proud of then its not the union holding it up. If something has not been TA, that means any offer from the company has fallen short of either the industry and or what the majority wanted in the union surveys. Its funny to me that what the company says is truth but what the union says is a lie, who do you think want to get the pilot group a better deal vs who wants to get the company a better deal? Pilots that will settle for less because we are different are why we do not have a deal. The company will only respond to what they know is what the major majority of the pilots will take. We should all agree that we should get what the industry gets not anything less.

captnate702

management has already offered the best in the industry for job protections of instructors and Andrew rejected it. Nothing in your post addresses that fact.

Not sure what sand you’ve been burying your head in, but Andrew has lost the trust of the pilot group with all his antics these past 4-5 months. He has blatantly lied to us like a true politician to retain his power in an election cycle.