Columbia

Wasn't dalpa pushing that if the contract were voted down, the company had a plan B without the 717s?

johnso29

I understand the uneasy feeling. But IMO you can let that go. It seems the company is adjusting to the new policy. I have a feeling that they aren't too happy that they can't call whenever they want to, like they could under the old policy. There are now parameters that have to be met. There have been very few Good Faith calls, & DALPA is very aware of them. After talking with my Rep for over 1 hour, I'm confident that DALPA is engaging the company on the details of the new sick policy.

johnso29

Great. That just leaves Skywest and ExpressJet to take care of. That's only 150+ 50 seaters between them.

tsquare

Yeah, but it was a deal struck in BK..... you know... saying no all that time really paid off. Of course after how many years of stagnation? (and sliding backwards due to cost of living increases... I really wish some AMR guys would weigh in and tell us if they think it was worth the wait. If the vast majority do believe the loss of investment income was worth the punch in management's face, I will shut up, but I do not believe that anybody could honestly say it was.

acl65pilot

Reps I have spoken to say the same thing

Same again.

Is what is and doesn't matter. I could give two hoots how someone voted in the "last" agreement. What matters is that everyone sees a very different tone and track from this MEC which had about a 50% turnover in Jan(admin) and March (Reps). What needs to happen is for everyone to be unified behind their bargaining agent; ALPA, for the next round of negotiations. Instead of looking for reasons to undercut your Association, we all need to start putting pressure and accountability on our Reps so they know that 1) they are held accountable and 2) We back them when they go to the table. If we want better results we cannot be a divided group.

What we are seeing out of DALPA is proof that more and more are communicating with their Reps and their Reps and Admin are using that input to close the communication circle. Isn't that what we asked for a few years ago? Aren't we seeing progress?

GunshipGuy

When are we going to get people negotiating for us who don't think (bolded) this way? I'd prefer instead those working on the PWA who thought three steps ahead and continually asked themselves "How can we improve this and make it ironclad and what costs should we demand ahead of time if this part is not complied with?" Instead we seem to have the attitude stated above: Hindsight is 20/20; trust the other side; if it doesn't work out we'll fix it next time around; it's the best that could have done at the time, PERIOD. I doubt the company would be as forgiving if their "professional negotiators" allowed for so much trust, but so little verification.

tsquare

Have you told your reps that this is unacceptable? I will certainly tell mine. I can live where we are right now, and if no widebodies come, I couldn't care less. It would be nice to have the opportunity to move up the food chain with the introduction of a few (unfortunately) higher paying seats, but if they don't materialize, I can live with that.

So the next question is: What is the remedy for the non compliance? More money? (Isn't that a sale of scope?) That's about all I can think of. What is your idea?

tsquare

GunshipGuy

What are those parameters? My reading of the PWA allows for the company to call "when individual circumstances exist." As far as I can tell that's undefined, so the CPO can call for verification when he chooses as long as they've been given a "good faith basis." Again, no parameters stated in the PWA.

scambo1

3B6 was a section...

oh nevermind, I guess we should subsidize aircraft purchases and lower ticket prices.