There's more to TC's story
03-10-2011, 05:29 PM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Are there parts to TC's letter that are not factual?
Last edited by Busboy; 03-10-2011 at 05:43 PM.
03-10-2011, 06:07 PM
#55
Slainge Var'
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Zeppelin Tail Gunner
Posts: 1,530
03-10-2011, 06:39 PM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Signed by all the Mec reps but 1 was the post I replyed to. But as for the other I think we are still waiting for the MEC to respond to the block 5 letter. I did read their policy manual lecture though.
03-10-2011, 08:14 PM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,224
I've seen the union slant and the reasons they think we should approve the TA. It is also their opinion and they could be right or wrong.
I agree with TC. I can't believe we are going to lose our US based pilots flying for a 3% raise. Not sure if you are in a FDA or are planning on it. If you are, I think it's a great deal. If you planning on doing your flying out of MEM, ANC, or LAX, I think you will be sadly disappointed when your bidpack shrinks. I think you will also be disappointed that we will require less pilots due to the efficiency of the FDAs.
I also think a poster made an excellent point concerning the company using external factors determining if they can negotiate with us. If the NPRM actually comes to fruition and the rules are changed, obviously we can't schedule in excess of the FARs. While our contract might say we can work 16 hours everytime they have an operational emergency, if the FARs say different, that will be the rule.
There is always uncertainty in the world. Pinnacle approved a TA after many years of negotiations and you could argue that the NPRM might effect them more. How could they do it? What if individual contractors become Fedex employees? What if the brown bailout reappears? What if the mechanics unionize? What if oil rises to $150/barrel? But they choose not to negotiate with us and it's OK? Lets give up our bidpacks for a cost of living raise?
How about fixing 4.A.2.b.? I thought we'd never sign a contract that didn't fix it to our satisfaction. So it's OK to give the company millions in labor savings even though we don't fix one of our most notorious sections of our contract? How much did you lose? I lost a bunch, and while I doubt I'll ever see a dime, I won't settle for a contract that doesn't take care of it. If you don't think they will use it again (and with the economy teetering again, they might), I'd say you're naive. They won't do it because their mean guys (even though they may be), they are doing it because it's business and we are just a cost center.
How about the small potatoes like accepted fares, min pay for reserve day, etc? I find it amazing that we can't take care of this but can certainly take care of the union officers!!!
I find it unbelievable that our pilots sell out for a tiny raise.
03-10-2011, 08:46 PM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 285
Sorry, but I never saw anything that proved him wrong. I also never read anything in his report that was factually incorrect. He gave his opinion, which may be right or wrong.
I've seen the union slant and the reasons they think we should approve the TA. It is also their opinion and they could be right or wrong.
I agree with TC. I can't believe we are going to lose our US based pilots flying for a 3% raise. Not sure if you are in a FDA or are planning on it. If you are, I think it's a great deal. If you planning on doing your flying out of MEM, ANC, or LAX, I think you will be sadly disappointed when your bidpack shrinks. I think you will also be disappointed that we will require less pilots due to the efficiency of the FDAs.
I also think a poster made an excellent point concerning the company using external factors determining if they can negotiate with us. If the NPRM actually comes to fruition and the rules are changed, obviously we can't schedule in excess of the FARs. While our contract might say we can work 16 hours everytime they have an operational emergency, if the FARs say different, that will be the rule.
There is always uncertainty in the world. Pinnacle approved a TA after many years of negotiations and you could argue that the NPRM might effect them more. How could they do it? What if individual contractors become Fedex employees? What if the brown bailout reappears? What if the mechanics unionize? What if oil rises to $150/barrel? But they choose not to negotiate with us and it's OK? Lets give up our bidpacks for a cost of living raise?
How about fixing 4.A.2.b.? I thought we'd never sign a contract that didn't fix it to our satisfaction. So it's OK to give the company millions in labor savings even though we don't fix one of our most notorious sections of our contract? How much did you lose? I lost a bunch, and while I doubt I'll ever see a dime, I won't settle for a contract that doesn't take care of it. If you don't think they will use it again (and with the economy teetering again, they might), I'd say you're naive. They won't do it because their mean guys (even though they may be), they are doing it because it's business and we are just a cost center.
How about the small potatoes like accepted fares, min pay for reserve day, etc? I find it amazing that we can't take care of this but can certainly take care of the union officers!!!
I find it unbelievable that our pilots sell out for a tiny raise.
I've seen the union slant and the reasons they think we should approve the TA. It is also their opinion and they could be right or wrong.
I agree with TC. I can't believe we are going to lose our US based pilots flying for a 3% raise. Not sure if you are in a FDA or are planning on it. If you are, I think it's a great deal. If you planning on doing your flying out of MEM, ANC, or LAX, I think you will be sadly disappointed when your bidpack shrinks. I think you will also be disappointed that we will require less pilots due to the efficiency of the FDAs.
I also think a poster made an excellent point concerning the company using external factors determining if they can negotiate with us. If the NPRM actually comes to fruition and the rules are changed, obviously we can't schedule in excess of the FARs. While our contract might say we can work 16 hours everytime they have an operational emergency, if the FARs say different, that will be the rule.
There is always uncertainty in the world. Pinnacle approved a TA after many years of negotiations and you could argue that the NPRM might effect them more. How could they do it? What if individual contractors become Fedex employees? What if the brown bailout reappears? What if the mechanics unionize? What if oil rises to $150/barrel? But they choose not to negotiate with us and it's OK? Lets give up our bidpacks for a cost of living raise?
How about fixing 4.A.2.b.? I thought we'd never sign a contract that didn't fix it to our satisfaction. So it's OK to give the company millions in labor savings even though we don't fix one of our most notorious sections of our contract? How much did you lose? I lost a bunch, and while I doubt I'll ever see a dime, I won't settle for a contract that doesn't take care of it. If you don't think they will use it again (and with the economy teetering again, they might), I'd say you're naive. They won't do it because their mean guys (even though they may be), they are doing it because it's business and we are just a cost center.
How about the small potatoes like accepted fares, min pay for reserve day, etc? I find it amazing that we can't take care of this but can certainly take care of the union officers!!!
I find it unbelievable that our pilots sell out for a tiny raise.
03-10-2011, 09:08 PM
#60
Proponent of Hysteria
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: "Part of the problem." : JL
Posts: 1,057
GolfAndFly:
I believe you misunderstood my post (easy to see how though, since it was only 1 line).
I was not disagreeing with some of the short comings and oversights in this TA.
What I was referring to, when I made my previous post, was this:
In a recent communication by Seniority Block 5, Representative Cutler made accusations that MEC Vice Chairman Manning had attempted to silence his ability to communicate with the members of his Block.
I never believed this accusation from TonyC to be true in the first place. And after reading the new email from our MEC, I hope no one else believes the above accusation either.
I believe you misunderstood my post (easy to see how though, since it was only 1 line).
I was not disagreeing with some of the short comings and oversights in this TA.
What I was referring to, when I made my previous post, was this:
In a recent communication by Seniority Block 5, Representative Cutler made accusations that MEC Vice Chairman Manning had attempted to silence his ability to communicate with the members of his Block.
I never believed this accusation from TonyC to be true in the first place. And after reading the new email from our MEC, I hope no one else believes the above accusation either.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
