23.M.7 Updated
07-01-2023, 12:17 PM
#131
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: B737 FO
Posts: 709
This makes logical sense, but would go against what I know about SK’s character.
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.
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.
I still think we should have pressed on with this, even if the outcome had been worse. What kind of message does this send the Co.? Create a staffing problem, and then knowingly violate the PWA, admit you violated the PWA, continue to violate the PWA to try and solve the problem and then just get the pilots to fix it for you?
All this seems like is a big green light to find some new area of the PWA to violate.
07-01-2023, 12:25 PM
#132
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
07-01-2023, 01:55 PM
#133
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,760
Speaking of missed opportunities, it's great to see a TA1 hard yes rep back on the forum. Remember when you indicated we'd never improve on TA1 if Delta pilots shot it down? Whooops.
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.
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.
I would hardly call the post a C81 SM spokesman piece. That was a council comm sent to every C81 pilot written by the reps.
Throttle back!
07-01-2023, 02:26 PM
#134
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Speaking of missed opportunities, it's great to see a TA1 hard yes rep back on the forum. Remember when you indicated we'd never improve on TA1 if Delta pilots shot it down? Whooops.
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?
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?
Stay focused.
I put the perspective out there for one reason, It is the only council with a spit vote. I said that. The process result here is a mess and should not have happened this way. The SLC Capt rep agrees and its the one perspective that wasn't signed on to by everyone else.
As for the past, the internet was wrong and apparently still is. Most Moak's wouldn't **** on me if I was on fire. I was not a vote they could guarantee.
As for the NC election, come to think of it, I should run, but ****ing off the MEC disagreeing with their position on this isn't prepping for a run is it? keep trying. Just had lot of people wonder why I haven't gotten on here and today I decided to.
Right now I am disgusted at this settlement. We gave and got nothing for it.
07-01-2023, 02:34 PM
#135
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,016
100% this. After working at multiple airlines with contentious labor relations and seeing labor lose again and again in court/arbitration on what seemed like 'slam-dunk' cases I am still surprised by how often labor loses. Maybe we are just delusional about how rock solid our arguements are? Or maybe arbitrators know their work will quickly dry up if they don't side with businesses 90% of the time.
I still think we should have pressed on with this, even if the outcome had been worse. What kind of message does this send the Co.? Create a staffing problem, and then knowingly violate the PWA, admit you violated the PWA, continue to violate the PWA to try and solve the problem and then just get the pilots to fix it for you?
All this seems like is a big green light to find some new area of the PWA to violate.
I still think we should have pressed on with this, even if the outcome had been worse. What kind of message does this send the Co.? Create a staffing problem, and then knowingly violate the PWA, admit you violated the PWA, continue to violate the PWA to try and solve the problem and then just get the pilots to fix it for you?
All this seems like is a big green light to find some new area of the PWA to violate.
07-01-2023, 02:35 PM
#136
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Go chat with the former scheduling chairs. Their decade and and a half of past practice has given them a different perspective.
07-01-2023, 02:41 PM
#137
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,016
Maybe, but after reading the PWA, I believe we could have lost that grievance. We were all saying on here that what they were doing wasn’t working for either party. Lots of pilots apparently calling scheduling and cutting deals.
07-01-2023, 02:58 PM
#138
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Do we recall Mr Watson and JL apologizing for its use and not to do it again? That matters too
07-01-2023, 03:16 PM
#139
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: B737 FO
Posts: 709
The wording is extremely squishy and honestly I'm surprised they didn't start using it in a widespread manner much sooner. If arbitration was balanced our arguement of 20+ years of past practice and apologies/admittals on the mis-use of 23.M.7 would carry the day, however as previously mentioned arbitration is heavily weighted in the company's favor and because of the wording we probably would have lost.
07-01-2023, 03:24 PM
#140
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Posts: 904
I think we had a decent case. But the language is garbage. It’s not the slam dunk you say it is. That being said, I do wish we pressed forward with the process. The outcome of a loss in arbitration is unlikely to be significantly worse than what we settled for.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
