HIFLYR

[QUOTE=TonyC;1252117]I have a beef with the virtual training letter, too, but the MEC didn't agree to anything. That was a settlement made by the Grievance Committee without coordination with the MEC. We made repeated appeals to be brought into the loop of settlements which would affect the CBA or how it is administered. I believe this process was improved somewhat as a result.


Tony you are saying a committee can approve something with the company without the MEC or MEC leadership being privy to it. If this is the case this needs to be fixed ASAP if it has not already been.

4A2B

[QUOTE=HIFLYR;1252186]Tony is not 100% on this, the MEC includes their elected Officers who act on the behalf of the MEC for daily ops and all settlements are reviewed and some even signed by the MEC Chair (big ones). The MEC only meets 4-5 times a year and relies on the Officers to conduct the pilots business and getting 13 more people in on grievance settlements would be impossible, especially the discipline ones. So to answer your question, the MEC (maybe through the Officers) are always involved and have the ultimate approval of settlements (except discipline from what i hear).

Any changes to the SOP need to be directed by the MEC. Good luck with that if it ever was

TonyC

In a word, yes.

Just to be sure we're using the same vocabulary here ... the MEC is the 13 elected Block Representatives. The MEC Officers work for the MEC. The MEC Committees work for the MEC Chairman.

The Committees don't work directly for the MEC, and you wouldn't want them to. They operate day-to-day in as autonomous a manner as they can, but when guidance or direction is required, that comes from the MEC Officers. It is very common for committees to take action with the blessing of the the MEC Chairman, but the MEC itself has no knowledge until being briefed after the fact.

One such briefing I recall from open session of the MEC (so I can talk about it) was when the Grievance Department briefed the MEC on the settlement offer they had made to The Company on the open portions of the §4.A.2.b. grievances. The MEC had directed them to study the bid months which the arbitrator had not included in his decision, and to review the months he had considered in light of errors we felt he had made in his analysis, and develop a proposal which would address the gross disparity in BLGs and attempt to compensate those pilots who were the most egregiously harmed, perhaps with something like a "Buy Up Value" which we had been using prior to exit from §4.A.2.b. Instead, the Grievance Committee, with the blessing of the MEC Chairman, proposed a settlement to The Company which asked for no monetary remedy. In short, the MEC expected money, and had told the pilots to expect money. The settlement offer didn't even ask for money. The MEC was shocked. The MEC Chairman said he didn't think we ever intended to ask for money. The Block 1 Rep produced MEC Chairman Messages which stated otherwise.


This was only one such occurrence, and a majority of the members of the MEC expressed on numerous occassions their desire to be brought into the loop on issues which affect the CBA and how it's administered. As I said in the first post, I believe the situation has improved.


I don't know how you can fix that with a policy or procedure. The MEC has to be able to trust the MEC Chairman to operate in a manner consistent with their policy decisions and direction, and to be sensitive to the types of actions or decisions which rise to the level of informing the MEC before they're complete. While the MEC meets in person only a few times a year, weekly or bi-weekly conference calls are common, e-mail and phone calls can be exchanged, and it only requires 24 hours notice to convenve a special meeting to make decisions that rise to that level.






.

MaydayMark

Tony,

You seem unusually "verbose" this week. Did your wife forget to give you your meds again?

Mark

TonyC

Nah, just enjoying some time off, catching up on Mad Men, turning down Draft Calls.






.

Gunter

Tony,

Good on you for getting the word out and keeping this a hot topic.

If the wording is clear as you say, arbitration should turn out well for our pilots affected. I hope that is the case.

Until the housing allowance is given without condition or restriction you can count me out....Our FDAs are not a good a deal in current form. Memphis is a cheap city to live in and I'll happily spend my entire career stateside. In their quest to minimize the cost to send pilots overseas to SAVE THE COMPANY LARGE SUMS OF MONEY, managers have made the assignment undesirable.

trashhauler

I would never consider an FDA for the same reasons. I just don't get why pilots are willing to subject themselves to an FDA in the current form. I know, I know... they all have their reasons. But I always wonder what the FDA would be like if nobody bid it? Pie in the sky, but I guarantee it would be a heck of lot better then it is now. We'll never know of course

AFW_MD11

ditto - my sentiments exactly.

(except "than" not then )

Popeye

I am an avid 32% with regards to the FDA issue. But as of now, it is what it is.

Even in its current form, I would consider going to an FDA once the kids are out of the house, maybe a few years before retiring, head over for a nice little foreign adventure, good beer and some laughs. That's the way the company wanted it. That's the way we allowed it to happen.

So you want to make it better. Perhaps a little more appealing to the average pilot? What do you suggest we give up to get those improvements? Because we gave it up not too long ago for next to nothing.

Gunter

Nothing. If everyone gets the housing allowance without the company crawling up their backside, they still make a killing over sending us via SIBA.

They don't have to do what they're doing to ensure the viability of the FDAs or ensure a profit. They are maximizing it.