Alan Shore

No confusion on my part, other than what goes on inside your head sometimes. Which is it? Was the TA the product of negotiation (with Scrappy using his skills) or was it something the Company had wanted from the start?

Your assertion that, because the MEC and pilot group ratified the first TA, Scrappy was never forced to "use his negotiating skills," implies to me that the Company had planned all along to give us exactly what we wound up with. Perhaps you feel that the gap between their opener and the TA was somehow magically bridged by them using a Vulcan mindmeld, since Scrappy did not negotiate for it.

Do you seriously believe that the only way to get a Negotiating Committee to even try is to reject their first TA? If so, then why not the second or the third?

That is my confusion.

GunshipGuy

DogW, just curious, do you sweat the vision part of your physical every year?

GunshipGuy

I would suggest not giving them anything sooner than "promptly available" response if you're a commuter. When I was commuting to reserve I would often drive up to a friend or family member's place in Marietta after flying in the night before or day of and sit SC there. Sometimes when traffic was bad "promptly available" was more like 2+20 from getting called.

MDPilot

I had a sched supervisor tell me (after a 2 hr call in to commute snafu) "I don't care what the contract says, we schedule reserves to cover the trips however we want." Since then I am always 2 hr away from call to report. It can take a long time to get out of that chair in the lounge.

Carl Spackler

OK, I see you came in mid conversation. This is how it started:

You see, we were discussing our ability as a body to make changes to a TA after the TA was signed by the NC. Then I responded to Fly4hire this way:

Then when Fly4hire still didn't agree, I posted this:

Again, we weren't discussing negotiating from an opener to a TA. We were discussing negotiating skills after a TA is reached for the purpose of changing that TA. It is that negotiating skill that we didn't have "Scrappy" use because we all voted yes to the first TA.

Clear now?

Carl

Alan Shore

I hope you noted the name, date, and time and called ALPA immediately.

Alan Shore

How many times has my wife told me to stop getting into the middle of conversations? Too many!!

My apologies for having done so and for taking your post out of context as a result.

gloopy

The DL/SW rivalry goes all the way back to each company's secret ab initio training programs. While SWA candidates sacrifice kittens and puppies to desensitize them from the mandatory naked sim training, DL candidates are constantly evaluated to a higher standard.

Carl Spackler

Hmmm, flamebait. Ironic.

Which is why I didn't call because my guys would have felt obligated to call back. I wanted them to enjoy a few days peace.

Anyway, had a good conversation with my rep today. Here's a quick synopsis:

1. CDO's originated from a special select sub committee of the scheduling committee, not a 4 year old defeated LEC resolution. The subcommittee inserted CDO's into the negotiating wish list. Reps found out about CDO's during their initial meetings to give direction. The reps' direction included strict limitations and provisions to any CDO's. the TA did not include those limits. Reps that were upset about their guidance being ignored were bolstered by a nearly record flood of angry emails and calls. After initially fighting the MEC, the NC went back to the company and made the changes.

2. No mention of a pay no credit lookback between now and November.

3. MEC nearly equally split on need for MEMRAT. interesting that its a philosophical split and not a split along north/south.

4. Acknowledgement that given the volumes of MEC communication, pilots were not communicated with regarding what was being negotiated.

5. The logic as to how CDO's became part of 117 (fatigue regulations) negotiations was because CDO's are covered in FAR 117. This was the open door used by the scheduling subcommittee to insert them into our opening position.

6. Company considered CDO's to be zero cost. Yet when we returned to ask for removal of them, the company gave their removal from the already signed TA to cost $4 million. So the loss of one hour to the long call leash and other stuff was determined by the company to be required to make them whole for their new additional cost of 4 million to remove CDO's that were a zero cost item when negotiations began.

Lots more stuff but this is already too long. MEC still very divided philosophically between guys like the CVG chairman who openly stated: 'we don't need MEMRAT because pilots don't have the time or the knowledge capacity to understand this stuff. That's why they hire us' ... and guys who believe just the opposite. No changes to that seen anytime soon

Carl

Carl Spackler

No prob amigo.

Carl