Why I'm Voting No
10-05-2015, 05:38 PM
#131
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2012
Posts: 711
TheHiddenArrows.com
www.ThehiddenArrows.com is on the move! Three new papers!
The Givebacks https://thehiddenarrowsdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/the-givebacks.pdf
The Quick and Dirty
https://thehiddenarrowsdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/the-quick-dirty.pdf
SLB
https://thehiddenarrowsdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/slb.pdf
The Givebacks https://thehiddenarrowsdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/the-givebacks.pdf
The Quick and Dirty
https://thehiddenarrowsdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/the-quick-dirty.pdf
SLB
https://thehiddenarrowsdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/slb.pdf
10-07-2015, 03:17 PM
#132
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,095
Another version of flat bed/lie-flat seat in the works, not kidding. Airbus has another wacky patent for airlines
From the article:
"Consumers may rebuff plans for cramming more seats into an aircraft, especially with airline seats reportedly shrinking more and more each year, but the company hopes to provide a high level of comfort for passengers by designing some seats that can recline 130 to 180 degrees."
Remember the TA language:
c. Higher Class of Service
i. Regardless of a passenger carrier’s nomenclature or hierarchy for
classes of service, a Flat Bed Seat satisfies the higher class of
service requirements set forth in this Section. (p.119)
Remember, and ask friends at UAL, once we give this up by agreeing to the TA language, we will NEVER get it back.
10-12-2015, 09:05 AM
#133
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,095
From the www.thehiddenarrows.com:
FDX Tentative Agreement 2015 Comparative Analysis: The Participation Trophy
Before the 2006 contract was ratified, the Negotiating Committee sent the pilot group copies of the TA’d sections as they were completed. Why hasn’t this Negotiating Committee done the same? When asked, they replied with the following: “This is a package deal. The contract needs to be judged as a whole not per each section”. So we were kept in the blind until negotiations were complete. Then the blind “YES” advocates demanded on seeing the TA for the crew force to decide.
Upon initial presentation, the Association told the pilot group that they would NOT be selling the contract. But then we had the Negotiating Committee telling us to vote YES. We’ve had MEC representatives telling us to vote YES. These same representatives are telling us that after we vote YES, and when this TA is ratified, the company will come back to the table to renegotiate Section 28: Retirement. This is the same Negotiating Committee and representatives that have publically condemned our MEC Chairman for using the term “reject” during hub turn meetings. This is the same Negotiating Committee and representatives that are condemning differing points of view, condemning social media, attempting to recall representatives who disagree, and are now pulling the ace from the hole as a means of swaying votes.
That’s right, today the NC Chairman sent out a communication informing the pilot group that due to new information the retro/signing bonus has increased. So what is this new information when the Negotiating Committee specifically stated: “There is no more money and we left nothing on the table”? Obviously, there was more money on the table, so where did this come from? Or did the Negotiating Committee simply miscalculate the numbers? If so, are there other miscalculations in the presentations? Or has the line in the sand moved just a touch with the changing tides. Was the pot sweetened to get you to vote in a specific way? Are the gains really gains? And is the one big loss (healthcare, as the NC claims) really the only loss? Numbers are only numbers unless they are quantified and verified.
Looking back at past negotiations as well as negotiations at others carriers, this is the first time that a MEC Chairman has not issued an opinion regarding the TA. The Negotiating Committee reads between the lines, and thus feels emboldened to counsel him with regards to his use of the term “reject.” Well, we can also read between the lines, but instead of counseling our MEC Chairman, let’s applaud him. Let’s REJECT this TA, and join the ranks of our fellow airline pilots. Let’s unite with Delta, Republic, Air Wisconsin and Mesa, and put an end to concessionary contracts. Let’s show the company and our Negotiating Committee that we can’t be bought for a few measly bucks and that there are more important issues to us like retirement, quality of life, and health care.
Let’s give our Negotiating Committee a participation trophy, and send them on their way. Unfortunately, their best just wasn’t good enough.
FDX Tentative Agreement 2015 Comparative Analysis: The Participation Trophy
Before the 2006 contract was ratified, the Negotiating Committee sent the pilot group copies of the TA’d sections as they were completed. Why hasn’t this Negotiating Committee done the same? When asked, they replied with the following: “This is a package deal. The contract needs to be judged as a whole not per each section”. So we were kept in the blind until negotiations were complete. Then the blind “YES” advocates demanded on seeing the TA for the crew force to decide.
Upon initial presentation, the Association told the pilot group that they would NOT be selling the contract. But then we had the Negotiating Committee telling us to vote YES. We’ve had MEC representatives telling us to vote YES. These same representatives are telling us that after we vote YES, and when this TA is ratified, the company will come back to the table to renegotiate Section 28: Retirement. This is the same Negotiating Committee and representatives that have publically condemned our MEC Chairman for using the term “reject” during hub turn meetings. This is the same Negotiating Committee and representatives that are condemning differing points of view, condemning social media, attempting to recall representatives who disagree, and are now pulling the ace from the hole as a means of swaying votes.
That’s right, today the NC Chairman sent out a communication informing the pilot group that due to new information the retro/signing bonus has increased. So what is this new information when the Negotiating Committee specifically stated: “There is no more money and we left nothing on the table”? Obviously, there was more money on the table, so where did this come from? Or did the Negotiating Committee simply miscalculate the numbers? If so, are there other miscalculations in the presentations? Or has the line in the sand moved just a touch with the changing tides. Was the pot sweetened to get you to vote in a specific way? Are the gains really gains? And is the one big loss (healthcare, as the NC claims) really the only loss? Numbers are only numbers unless they are quantified and verified.
Looking back at past negotiations as well as negotiations at others carriers, this is the first time that a MEC Chairman has not issued an opinion regarding the TA. The Negotiating Committee reads between the lines, and thus feels emboldened to counsel him with regards to his use of the term “reject.” Well, we can also read between the lines, but instead of counseling our MEC Chairman, let’s applaud him. Let’s REJECT this TA, and join the ranks of our fellow airline pilots. Let’s unite with Delta, Republic, Air Wisconsin and Mesa, and put an end to concessionary contracts. Let’s show the company and our Negotiating Committee that we can’t be bought for a few measly bucks and that there are more important issues to us like retirement, quality of life, and health care.
Let’s give our Negotiating Committee a participation trophy, and send them on their way. Unfortunately, their best just wasn’t good enough.
10-15-2015, 04:39 AM
#134
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: MD11 F/O
Posts: 653
Retirement negotiation recap
ALPA: We want to remove barriers to retirement.
Company:We want to add shiny incentives to work longer harder and sicker.
ALPA: OK.
ALPA: We want to improve the A plan.
Company: We can't afford it.
ALPA: OK
ALPA: We want to improve the B plan.
Company: We'll give you 1% now and 1% in a few years.
ALPA: Great , Next section.
Company:We want to add shiny incentives to work longer harder and sicker.
ALPA: OK.
ALPA: We want to improve the A plan.
Company: We can't afford it.
ALPA: OK
ALPA: We want to improve the B plan.
Company: We'll give you 1% now and 1% in a few years.
ALPA: Great , Next section.
10-15-2015, 06:21 AM
#135
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,813
ALPA: We want to remove barriers to retirement.
Company:We want to add shiny incentives to work longer harder and sicker.
ALPA: OK.
ALPA: We want to improve the A plan.
Company: We can't afford it.
ALPA: OK
ALPA: We want to improve the B plan.
Company: We'll give you 1% now and 1% in a few years.
ALPA: Great , Next section.
Company:We want to add shiny incentives to work longer harder and sicker.
ALPA: OK.
ALPA: We want to improve the A plan.
Company: We can't afford it.
ALPA: OK
ALPA: We want to improve the B plan.
Company: We'll give you 1% now and 1% in a few years.
ALPA: Great , Next section.
10-15-2015, 09:15 AM
#136
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2014
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 52
There was at least one pilot that wasn't "allowed" to even interview for NC chairman. He helped negotiate on previous contracts, but was deemed to "radical". JN for our next NC chairman !
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
