Originally Posted by crewdawg

Just an idea for future reference, I open bid packets and wides in my phone every month. They're automatically saved in my downloads folder. Nice to have for things like this. A buddy had to use a wide once to prove he was NOT scheduled for LC on a day scheduling screwed up pulling off PB days. Crazy.

Originally Posted by Gone Flying

oh I don’t think other councils don’t have crap or it doesn’t stink, but the buffoonery currently coming out of 20 and 44 is beyond that of other council reps IMO

i was in 66 when the whole recall of MC went down. It was a petty personal vendetta presumably supported by TK, the outgoing chair. With that said the council showed up to the recall vote as squashed it roughly 5-1 (it’s been a while but IIRC that vote was about 120-30) TK is no longer the chair.






i personally have no problem with ALPA meeting with the company for LOAs. Leverage is only good if you use it and there is plenty of quids we could look at getting depending on what the company wants. BUT i don’t trust this MEC to deliver a LOA that would be an acceptable change and given how the batch size giveaway went and then changing definitions to circumvent the 2/3 requirement for a pay raise, I also don’t trust them to not do another “grievance settlement” to bypass the will of the membership to give away more parts of our PWA for nothing of value.

Originally Posted by StoneQOLdCrazy

the mec chairman can absolutley remove any committee member he wants at any time. Or committee chair too for that matter. The reference you cite just gives the MEC a chance to override the MEC chairman's abilitly to hire/fire.

So if a rep has wormed his way into the good graces of the chairman, and convinces the chairman to fire a volunteer, then the volunteer is fired. DH/DA seem to have played that game more than once.

Originally Posted by Whoopsmybad

Here’s the thing, if it is indeed a LOA, it HAS to go to MEMRAT. It’s in the policy manual. The batch size was a grievance settlement, which does not have to go to MEMRAT. That was the difference, and I’ve voiced my displeasure on multiple occasions.
When I asked about this new conversation, I was told that if a LOA is drafted it will go to MEMRAT, because it has to.

Originally Posted by All 5 Stages

Just curious ... how easy is it for the MEC to change the definition of LOA? You know, just in case the majority doesn't want to send the "agreement" to the memory rat.

Not that they would do anything so nefarious, of course ...

A5S

Originally Posted by Whoopsmybad

Here’s the thing, if it is indeed a LOA, it HAS to go to MEMRAT. It’s in the policy manual. The batch size was a grievance settlement, which does not have to go to MEMRAT. That was the difference, and I’ve voiced my displeasure on multiple occasions.
When I asked about this new conversation, I was told that if a LOA is drafted it will go to MEMRAT, because it has to.

Originally Posted by dmhpilot

The MEC can 2/3 vote to bypass MEMRAT for “very minor issues.”

Originally Posted by ancman

Definitely. That is why I’m against letting MEC members have full autonomy to make PWA-altering decisions.

When the curtain is peeled back to reveal their “insider” line of thinking, it is often clear how naive and/or management-influenced their decision process was. A perfect example was AB’s 3rd grade level dissertation on why the batch size giveaway was a good deal. Both his naivety and susceptibility to management were on full display.

Any action that will alter any word in the PWA, whether an LOA or MEC-driven grievance settlement, should go to MEMRAT as the final step. The notion that the MEC understands what pilots want better than the pilots themselves is absurd.

Originally Posted by Uninteresting

I saw quite a bit of “not my problem” attitudes when help could have easily been provided. Saw couple of fa’s Dhing. When someone asked them to work a short flight at the same time going to the same location, they said no thanks, I’m already seated.

Originally Posted by sailingfun

The RLA trumps state law and requires disputes to be settled in arbitration. The issues has gone through the courts many times. You can't sue the company for anything considered a minor dispute which this absolutely would be classified.

Originally Posted by ancman

In a nutshell, the effect of batch sizes forced the company to pay 300% to cover most premium trips (200% to an IA/GS pilot + 100% to a 23.M.7 pilot). That effect went completely unanticipated by management when they signed an LOA agreeing to batch sizes at the onset of COVID.

Paying 300% to cover trips was unsustainable for the company in the long term. In an effort to obtain free contractual relief, they gaslit ALPA and a portion of the pilot group into believing that their problem was actually our problem. They did so via three primary methods:

1. By telling us that the 23.M.7 process was abrogating seniority in assigning premium trips. This was true to an extent, but temporary.
2. By not paying the 23.M.7 pilot their 100% pay by default, forcing ALPA to use its manual resources to track and report violations. Only about 25-50% of violations were being discovered and paid at the time. More on this below.
3. By threatening to use 23.M.7 anytime they wanted, even weeks in advance. This was laughable because they were basically threatening to triple their costs on a routine basis.

Management knew that #2 was about to crumble, due in large part to automated enforcement software that was on the way. Our newly-signed contract gave ALPA direct API access to our scheduling system. A vendor was already under contract by ALPA to develop software that would utilize that access. Eventually, the software would find and report every 23.M.7 violation, eliminating the company’s ability to evade paying 300% for most premium trips. Management pressured ALPA for a rushed solution, knowing full well that this debacle was about to become far more expensive for the company.

ALPA filed a grievance, arguing that 23.M.7 was meant for emergency use only, not routine use. Management doubled down on #3 above. They successfully frightened ALPA into believing that they would lose in arbitration. The worst case scenario, ALPA believed, was that the arbitrator would give the company an unlimited ability to use 23.M.7 (i.e. pay 300% to cover trips) whenever they felt like it.

A very slim majority (9 out of 17) of our MEC members fell for it, deciding to forfeit before the issue ever reached an arbitrator.
In conjunction with the chairman, they proceeded to gave away hundreds of millions of dollars in negotiating leverage by voluntarily surrendering our hard-fought contractual batch sizes. In return, the company “promised” that they wouldn’t use 23.M.7 outside of 8 hours before report time. Said another way, the company promised ALPA that they would only pay 100% to 200% to cover most trips instead of 300%. We received absolutely nothing of value in return. Our most significant negotiating leverage in years was blown by ALPA overnight.