iarapilot

Well, I can see the MEC trying a little smoke and mirror action by blaming the filer of the grievance, if it is won.

2cylinderdriver

Well this is plain bull$hit, to me this issue is more important than the Age 60 debacle. So the MEC has no problem allowing the Company to add sugar to the LOA by way of FCIF and the only concern they have is "the poor little junior guys bidding the FDA slots". What about the senior guys that may have bid FDA's if we had a proper LOA ?

What about our next contract, maybe the Company will offer a bonus for flying your schedule and no sick calls. More importantly what about the poor little FDA guys, when we get in Contract talks and the Company decides to "call in their deposit loans" to use these guys as hostages. Can they change it back via FCIF as fast as they made the deal ?

Micro

Let me first say that I DO NOT want to allow the company to direct deal with the crewforce. However, I was at the joint and LEC 26 meeting last week and heard BOTH sides of the issue. I don't think ANY pilot (MEC included) wants the company to direct deal but the company and union have come to solutions to problems and issues at other FDA's outside the LOA process (Airbridge Subic and ANC issues). If we go "hardline" on this (and I'm not saying we shouldn't) we may permanently turn off the ability to easily solve some unforeseen problems at FDA's. I'm not sure what the answer is. I think the opinion at LEC 26 was, let this be a problem solved (not really a deal sweetener, but it's the last. Flame away!!

iarapilot

Seems pretty elementary to me Watson. Put everything in writing via side letter or LOA or whatever. Simple enough. I would like to see some enforceable paperwork signed by our representatives and the Company. Aint that the way it is supposed to work?

If the MEC cant see how unilateral deals could, and will, lead to divide and conquer, they must be smoking crack or something! But, they have let it go on so far.

Falconjet

If you were there then you voted against the motion, as I was only one who voted in favor. So it appears that you did say that we shouldn't go hardline, and the majority agreed. Fair enough.

All I wanted was for the LEC to recommend that the MEC reject the enhancement, to make the MEC aware that some of the membership has a problem with the company adding enhancements to the LOA during a bid. We couldn't even vote to let the MEC know that we have some concerns.

That is the problem with the process, we are so afraid of offending somebody that we won't even tell the king that his fly is open, let alone that he has no clothes.

I'll say this again. Rental deposits were asked for during the negotiation of the LOA. The company turned it down. This is not some "problem or issue" that popped up out of the blue that the company is stepping in to smooth over to allow the FDAs to function. Its not an administrative issue that couldn't have been foreseen.

This is a purely economic benefit and inducement to bid the FDA during the standing bid that should have been included in the original LOA.

We negotiated a LOA. The MEC and NC said it was the best we could get. We ratified it. We should live by it, just like we do the CBA.

If people want to go to the FDA they should do it under the financial terms of the LOA. If the LOA isn't good enough, they shouldn't bid it.

We had leverage, we refused to use it, and by giving it away now $10K at a time we will never recover it.

FJ

FDXLAG

FJ thanks for being involved and setting the record straight.

I stand corrected. Now I will say the MEC already gave us a pretty good idea of their position by sending out that idiotic message line.

Micro

I'll agree. This should be in writing with the details worked out. However, I can still see the merits of an ability to work out solutions to unforeseen problems with the opening of new FDA's without the long drawn out LOA process. A side letter may be the solution for these "solved problems" vice just a FCIF.

I won't argue your point that the MEC/NC knew of this issue before they sent us this POS LOA. However, I was at the meeting, listened to ALL the discussion and comments, and agreed that at this time not to reject this enhancement. I may be totally screwed up with my view of this situation at this time (and my vote) but the majority of members who ALSO heard all the discussion voted the same way. You're wrong if you think the process is broken because we're afraid to OFFEND somebody. The process is broken because of the bylaws and how they say things must work, a totally outdated means of communication, and a meeting process that limits input to basically only LOCAL members.

FDXLAG

If they give it to us via FCIF they can take it via FCIF. Take a look at ground transportation and accepted fares.

It should be rejected and the LOA renegotiated if management isn't getting the response they need. Absent that the MEC should do what they do best and cave in on a side letter.

Falconjet

Amen to that! We are in violent agreement!

FJ

Albief15

So rather than just seething on past issues (very easy to do...) however moves into office next needs to work to make changes on these procedures.

I expect a LOT of resistance here...because the system has "worked" so well for some for so long...