23.M.7 Updated
07-01-2023, 10:22 AM
#121
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: 7ERA
Posts: 269
We were right. Why did we concede?
Where in that comm is the fact that ALL Scheduling Chairman, ALL MEC Chairman and ALL Negotiating Committee Chairmen and even the company initially agreed that this was an abuse of 23 M. 7.? It would seem the contract interpretation was fine, for a long time, negotiated, agreed, past practice ... I am not even sure what was disputed.
(for new folks, IA was only ever used within 2 hours which has been the accepted response for Short Call and even then, rarely. Most often operationally critical <30 minutes, created by a misconnect, mechanical or sick - not just a day before sick call or mid-rotation 04:30 show nobody wants to pick up)
Eight hours? Nearly an entire reset period before the duty period? How do multiple calls at 2:40 am promote safety? Why does trip coverage coincide with shift change? Why should trip coverage coincide with anything but the need to cover the trip? At a higher level, doesn't operational integrity and service to our customers matter more than coverage gamesmanship?
What is next? Taking away vacations? Similar language. Why not?
Where in that comm is the fact that ALL Scheduling Chairman, ALL MEC Chairman and ALL Negotiating Committee Chairmen and even the company initially agreed that this was an abuse of 23 M. 7.? It would seem the contract interpretation was fine, for a long time, negotiated, agreed, past practice ... I am not even sure what was disputed.
(for new folks, IA was only ever used within 2 hours which has been the accepted response for Short Call and even then, rarely. Most often operationally critical <30 minutes, created by a misconnect, mechanical or sick - not just a day before sick call or mid-rotation 04:30 show nobody wants to pick up)
Eight hours? Nearly an entire reset period before the duty period? How do multiple calls at 2:40 am promote safety? Why does trip coverage coincide with shift change? Why should trip coverage coincide with anything but the need to cover the trip? At a higher level, doesn't operational integrity and service to our customers matter more than coverage gamesmanship?
What is next? Taking away vacations? Similar language. Why not?
This should have gone to MEMRAT. The fact that it didn't and the fact that the MEC even marginally supported this shows how out of touch they are. The reps that supported this need to step down or be recalled. This is pathetic.
07-01-2023, 10:25 AM
#122
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
Taking issue with the Vice Chair's opinion above; this is the kind of arbitration where the change from past practice and testimony would have carried the greatest weight. Even so, had we lost it is unlikely a mediator would have found this kind of virtually open-ended (8 hour and a year from now reporting) remedy. We could have asked for much more visibility into coverage, and requirements to force coverage of trips, and tied the IA to the 2 hours or less that had been used for half a century; as well as a much tighter timeline on reporting. The mediator would not have understood or cared about the company's IT argument.
07-01-2023, 10:28 AM
#123
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Posts: 904
Was Shawn a part of the Administration that filed a grievance? Is he loyal to the administration that filed the grievance? My best guess is "yes."
Typically Contract Admin and the MEC Chairman will not file a grievance if the Scheduling Chairman does not share the opinion of Contract Admin. If a Committee Chair and CA do not agree, the Chairman of that committee typically resigns or is removed. Everyone needs to be unified.
We were right. There was no need for a concession. If the MEC (for whatever reason) wanted to relax batch sizes then they needed to put teeth into the coverage process - when coverage starts and visibility into that process.
Typically Contract Admin and the MEC Chairman will not file a grievance if the Scheduling Chairman does not share the opinion of Contract Admin. If a Committee Chair and CA do not agree, the Chairman of that committee typically resigns or is removed. Everyone needs to be unified.
We were right. There was no need for a concession. If the MEC (for whatever reason) wanted to relax batch sizes then they needed to put teeth into the coverage process - when coverage starts and visibility into that process.
The scheduling and contract administration committees were also parties to the settlement, so does that mean they agree with it or be fired/resign if the disagree?
There is often far more nuance in the filing of MEC level grievances than you suggest.
I’m not saying I agree with the settlement, my opinions are probably closest to RH. However, it’s not as unanimous and clear cut as you suggest in your posts. There are very real risks to proceeding to arbitration, as we saw with ATL airport closure and the Compass flow, both of
which were better cases than this.
07-01-2023, 11:02 AM
#124
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
So your answer is no, then.
The scheduling and contract administration committees were also parties to the settlement, so does that mean they agree with it or be fired/resign if the disagree?
There is often far more nuance in the filing of MEC level grievances than you suggest.
I’m not saying I agree with the settlement, my opinions are probably closest to RH. However, it’s not as unanimous and clear cut as you suggest in your posts. There are very real risks to proceeding to arbitration, as we saw with ATL airport closure and the Compass flow, both of
which were better cases than this.
The scheduling and contract administration committees were also parties to the settlement, so does that mean they agree with it or be fired/resign if the disagree?
There is often far more nuance in the filing of MEC level grievances than you suggest.
I’m not saying I agree with the settlement, my opinions are probably closest to RH. However, it’s not as unanimous and clear cut as you suggest in your posts. There are very real risks to proceeding to arbitration, as we saw with ATL airport closure and the Compass flow, both of
which were better cases than this.
Alternative theory - batch sizes were creating a ton of work for the Scheduling Committee; identifying the missed pilot, verifying the batch size and getting pay treatment for everyone in the batch size. Most of us think there were errors in this process and the company was fighting the pay treatments (ACE it, ACE it, ACE it) A theory making the rounds is that Capt. Kellett agreed with the company that pilot slip abuse broke ARCOS** and fixed it by removing batch sizes. The scheduling committee job just got a lot better by not having to fix this mess.
If there is truth to the alternative theory the MEC Admin & Reps either got rolled or they were in on it. (I don't know and my rep will not tell me)
At the end of the day we know two things for sure:
- This makes life much easier for some ALPA admin
- The pilots gave up a ton of leverage to negotiate something better
** and I do not disagree with this logic, JMHO, but the result is not good.
07-01-2023, 11:24 AM
#125
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2019
Posts: 1,015
The more sunlight let into this whole settlement the more it stinks. This would have failed MEMRAT hard had it gone out.
Gotta love the logic of that SLC yes vote above:
”The company is using 23M7 as much as they want! It’s a huge problem!”
”So let’s go to court”
”No! If we do that and lose the company could use 23M7 as much as they want! Better to settle and give up our hard fought batch sizes, can’t afford to have them using 23M7 left and right.”
Serious question: How much was the company using 23M7 outside of 8 hours anyway? That data must exist, and it would be illuminating either way.
Gotta say though that Vice Chair comes across as a bit of a clown. “I plan on using auto-acknowledge but not auto-accept, so that when they eventually call me, I know that I am for sure #1 in line to get a GS…..”
Hope that works out for him
.
Gotta love the logic of that SLC yes vote above:
”The company is using 23M7 as much as they want! It’s a huge problem!”
”So let’s go to court”
”No! If we do that and lose the company could use 23M7 as much as they want! Better to settle and give up our hard fought batch sizes, can’t afford to have them using 23M7 left and right.”
Serious question: How much was the company using 23M7 outside of 8 hours anyway? That data must exist, and it would be illuminating either way.
Gotta say though that Vice Chair comes across as a bit of a clown. “I plan on using auto-acknowledge but not auto-accept, so that when they eventually call me, I know that I am for sure #1 in line to get a GS…..”
Hope that works out for him
.
07-01-2023, 11:32 AM
#126
Bent over by buybacks
Joined APC: Feb 2017
Posts: 777
So what's the occasion for your resurfacing on SM? It's certainly not a coincidence.
Trying to re-invent yourself, again?
Attempting to rehabilitate your track record of company appeasement?
Acting as the C81 chairman's SM spokesman?
Prepping for a certain MEC election in August?
Please do Delta pilots a favor and stay far away from union work. Especially the negotiating committee.
Here's some background about acl65pilot for folks who weren't around at the time. Here he is fawning over MEC Chairman Donatelli's election. Donatelli of the "PEB" rant during a TA1 road show. New Delta MEC Chairman elected
And some feedback from a former constituent. There is plenty more on the forum.
We can't go back to the Moak "constructive appeasement" philosophy acl65pilot so conscientiously adopted during his previous union work.
David Nestor is very good at returning e-mails and phone calls. With regard to whether he will be a good representative, this is not a question that requires much contemplation.
David Nestor has previously served as First Officer Representative.
David Nestor has previously failed as First Officer Representative.
And in failing, he nearly permanently damaged our careers and the career of every future Delta pilot.
The job of a Representative during contract negotiations is simple, gather the sentiment of your constituency and then place a "representative" vote on the TA on behalf of your constituency.
David Nestor willfully and knowingly voted AGAINST the will of his constituency. Not on a vote for MEC Chairman, but rather on a collective agreement that would immediately and directly effect our careers.
Many have theorized why he would do that:
1) He thinks he's the smartest guy in the room.
2) He folded under the pressure of the chairman and other MEC members.
3) He was afraid that voting against the majority of the MEC would cost him future opportunities for ALPA work.
Choose either one or all of these and it should bring you to the conclusion that being a Representative is not David's strong suit. And I have personally shared these thoughts with David. I have also thanked him for his dedication to union work and encouraged him to pursue other opportunities at ALPA that might better suit his strengths.
There is no question that David puts in a lot of unpaid hours and genuinely cares about his fellow pilots. I for one am appreciative of his efforts. But at the same time, I will not vote to send a person with a failed record as Representative into that position.
David was nearly recalled by an apathetic pilot group and then blown out in the following election.
For whatever good David and his union leadership friends think he can do as a Representative, the very act of him running for and accepting this position will continue to build upon the untrustworthy and "top-down" reputation that ALPA has earned over the past few years. I am personally surprised that a person who is so "thoughtful and forward looking" could not understand the damage that him running will cause to the ALPA brand, especially in light of his very recent history as Representative. David has been very well taken care of by ALPA through is assignment to appointed positions. I hope he will reconsider the consequences of running for this position at this time.
David Nestor has previously served as First Officer Representative.
David Nestor has previously failed as First Officer Representative.
And in failing, he nearly permanently damaged our careers and the career of every future Delta pilot.
The job of a Representative during contract negotiations is simple, gather the sentiment of your constituency and then place a "representative" vote on the TA on behalf of your constituency.
David Nestor willfully and knowingly voted AGAINST the will of his constituency. Not on a vote for MEC Chairman, but rather on a collective agreement that would immediately and directly effect our careers.
Many have theorized why he would do that:
1) He thinks he's the smartest guy in the room.
2) He folded under the pressure of the chairman and other MEC members.
3) He was afraid that voting against the majority of the MEC would cost him future opportunities for ALPA work.
Choose either one or all of these and it should bring you to the conclusion that being a Representative is not David's strong suit. And I have personally shared these thoughts with David. I have also thanked him for his dedication to union work and encouraged him to pursue other opportunities at ALPA that might better suit his strengths.
There is no question that David puts in a lot of unpaid hours and genuinely cares about his fellow pilots. I for one am appreciative of his efforts. But at the same time, I will not vote to send a person with a failed record as Representative into that position.
David was nearly recalled by an apathetic pilot group and then blown out in the following election.
For whatever good David and his union leadership friends think he can do as a Representative, the very act of him running for and accepting this position will continue to build upon the untrustworthy and "top-down" reputation that ALPA has earned over the past few years. I am personally surprised that a person who is so "thoughtful and forward looking" could not understand the damage that him running will cause to the ALPA brand, especially in light of his very recent history as Representative. David has been very well taken care of by ALPA through is assignment to appointed positions. I hope he will reconsider the consequences of running for this position at this time.
07-01-2023, 11:32 AM
#127
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Posts: 904
You are correct. I do not know how the MEC Admin got itself here. It makes zero sense that the MEC would proceed with a grievance without the agreement of the Committee Chairman & Subject Matter Expert.
Alternative theory - batch sizes were creating a ton of work for the Scheduling Committee; identifying the missed pilot, verifying the batch size and getting pay treatment for everyone in the batch size. Most of us think there were errors in this process and the company was fighting the pay treatments (ACE it, ACE it, ACE it) A theory making the rounds is that Capt. Kellett agreed with the company that pilot slip abuse broke ARCOS** and fixed it by removing batch sizes. The scheduling committee job just got a lot better by not having to fix this mess.
If there is truth to the alternative theory the MEC Admin & Reps either got rolled or they were in on it. (I don't know and my rep will not tell me)
At the end of the day we know two things for sure:
** and I do not disagree with this logic, JMHO, but the result is not good.
Alternative theory - batch sizes were creating a ton of work for the Scheduling Committee; identifying the missed pilot, verifying the batch size and getting pay treatment for everyone in the batch size. Most of us think there were errors in this process and the company was fighting the pay treatments (ACE it, ACE it, ACE it) A theory making the rounds is that Capt. Kellett agreed with the company that pilot slip abuse broke ARCOS** and fixed it by removing batch sizes. The scheduling committee job just got a lot better by not having to fix this mess.
If there is truth to the alternative theory the MEC Admin & Reps either got rolled or they were in on it. (I don't know and my rep will not tell me)
At the end of the day we know two things for sure:
- This makes life much easier for some ALPA admin
- The pilots gave up a ton of leverage to negotiate something better
** and I do not disagree with this logic, JMHO, but the result is not good.
At the end of the day, we could go back and forth about the why’s, but I think we both agree we should have received more. I like the reporting requirements of the settlement, but it’s a small win for a large give up.
IMO, we likely would have lost an arbitration on the company’s current usage of 23.M.7. They would argue that current levels of open time and pilot behavior with blanket slips made increased usage of 23.M.7. the only way to protect the operation. Arbitrators are spring loaded to find any excuse to agree with a “protect the business” argument. However, given how little we got, I would have favored pressing on.
07-01-2023, 11:33 AM
#128
Bent over by buybacks
Joined APC: Feb 2017
Posts: 777
The more sunlight let into this whole settlement the more it stinks. This would have failed MEMRAT hard had it gone out.
Gotta love the logic of that SLC yes vote above:
”The company is using 23M7 as much as they want! It’s a huge problem!”
”So let’s go to court”
”No! If we do that and lose the company could use 23M7 as much as they want! Better to settle and give up our hard fought batch sizes, can’t afford to have them using 23M7 left and right.”
Serious question: How much was the company using 23M7 outside of 8 hours anyway? That data must exist, and it would be illuminating either way.
Gotta say though that Vice Chair comes across as a bit of a clown. “I plan on using auto-acknowledge but not auto-accept, so that when they eventually call me, I know that I am for sure #1 in line to get a GS…..”
Hope that works out for him.
Gotta love the logic of that SLC yes vote above:
”The company is using 23M7 as much as they want! It’s a huge problem!”
”So let’s go to court”
”No! If we do that and lose the company could use 23M7 as much as they want! Better to settle and give up our hard fought batch sizes, can’t afford to have them using 23M7 left and right.”
Serious question: How much was the company using 23M7 outside of 8 hours anyway? That data must exist, and it would be illuminating either way.
Gotta say though that Vice Chair comes across as a bit of a clown. “I plan on using auto-acknowledge but not auto-accept, so that when they eventually call me, I know that I am for sure #1 in line to get a GS…..”
Hope that works out for him
.
07-01-2023, 12:03 PM
#129
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2022
Posts: 337
It's nice of him to show all his constituents, and the rest of the pilot group, his severe lack of understanding of the process he felt it wise to torpedo. What a moron.
07-01-2023, 12:12 PM
#130
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2020
Posts: 793
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
