Originally Posted by FangsF15

Not sure what you mean? I think CBreezy was being sarcastic.

Originally Posted by Gspeed

No he isn’t. He’s laying it all at the feet of C44.

I think the settlement was terrible but let’s at least judge them with all the facts. It’s not like they were going against the will of frontline SME’s.

Originally Posted by ancman

Our hard-fought batch sizes forced the company’s hand into one of two options during coverage: 1. Pay potentially hundreds of pilots an extra 2:00 simply to be able to use a large enough batch size to cover a trip in time, or 2. Send the trip out to IA immediately and pay TRIPLE to cover the trip. Neither option was sustainable for the company. As a commuter, the occasional slow coverage didn’t matter to me one bit. It only changed the game.

This one item was worth hundreds of millions of dollars in negotiating capital to the pilot group. 8 members of the MEC saw that, while 9 got duped. SK will need to answer to it if he decides to run, particularly if it comes out that he did in fact support the deal as written. I won’t be supporting him if the latter is true.

Originally Posted by Whoopsmybad

While I agree there was a problem, and wholeheartedly disagree with eliminating batch sizes completely, there were absolutely pilots getting SCREWED by this, ones that couldn’t exercise their contractual rights to fly premium trips.

.

Originally Posted by Valar Morghulis

Correct me if I’m wrong, but one of the problems with the M7 issue is that there is no leveling mechanism to it. If you have a slip in, and the trip would have been awarded, the payment is made regardless if you’ve already been awarded a previous M7 payment over that same footprint. In theory you could get paid multiple times for the same day.

If that’s the case, that means the top 15-20 of each category could just clear their schedule or other wise
make room, and get money multiple times. If they were especially clever, they could coordinate amongst themselves. The M7 payments would never trickle down below that level.

Meanwhile, below that level, people with slips in who want to go fly get hosed, because the trip goes into the IA free for all, where someone out of seniority gets the trip.

I could see why someone very senior, and a commuter at that, would love that system. Just drop a blanket slip, sit at home in your PJs, and surf trip coverage looking for M7 money over and over, and never have to work. If I had that deal, I’d be pretty upset too. I heard one of the very senior 320As in SLC was apoplectic over this.

While connected, this is different than the batch size issue.

Originally Posted by CBreezy

Oh. You mean like when C44 sold batch sizes for two marbles and a paperclip? Cool story

Originally Posted by ODB2

Did you disagree with C44s vote to send C2019 to the membership for ratification and their recommendation to approve it? Besides 23.M.7, what other votes did you disagree with?

What makes you so sure that SK didn't do what Fangs said he did? Fangs seems to have good sources within the union. Do you have firsthand knowledge or sources to support that assertion? In any case, I do look forward to hearing more about the reasoning behind how and why 23.M.7 went down.

Originally Posted by FangsF15

But I agree in the fairness of having allegations see the light of day, and an opportunity to explain/defend before making up ones mind.

Originally Posted by IflyAeroPlanes

Yes, I disagreed with sending C2019 for memrat after the rushjob in Raleigh. Overall I'm happy with C2019, but I think we should have walked away from RDU and figured out the details of the deal (and language) first. We were made to believe we were in a no-time bucket. I will NEVER believe that. We re-wrote MAJOR areas of our contract and how we operate. We were miles apart prior to RDU and then BOOM we have an agreement!? We are seeing today how both sides aren't on the same page on the agreement or intent. Obviously some of that is management's tactics to renegotiate better terms (for them) after the fact. But perhaps there are some things that we never really worked out or thought of prior to implementation.

Originally Posted by ODB2

Did you disagree with C44s vote to send C2019 to the membership for ratification and their recommendation to approve it? Besides 23.M.7, what other votes did you disagree with?

What makes you so sure that SK didn't do what Fangs said he did? Fangs15 seems to have good sources within the union. Do you have firsthand knowledge or sources to support that assertion? In any case, I do look forward to hearing more about the reasoning behind how and why 23.M.7 went down.