The DAL rep no votes!!!!
05-23-2012, 12:23 PM
#31
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2012
Position: DAL
Posts: 623
Even if we recall every single rep, we're still stuck wasting money on a "union" that must look out for RJ pilots as much as they look out for us. Our interests are subjugated.
How much juice was spent to get the "ALPA carrier" hiring requirements in our TA? I don't think that was anywhere in the survey.
05-23-2012, 12:24 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
We are funding the company's DCI fleet plan, we are funding our work rules with our work rules, we are funding our "raise" with some profit sharing and we are funding the retirement bubble by paying for an early out that helps the company big time.
I could live with the rates if we got a significant increase in work rule/soft money and started to reduce large RJs. Without being single issue at all, this TA falls short in so many areas and that's OK...send it back and get it right.
05-23-2012, 01:33 PM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: 320A
Posts: 333
So many posts,so little memory,but haven't people posted that there are scope hawks on ATL 's LEC?
05-23-2012, 01:37 PM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: Decoupled
Posts: 922
One of my yes voting reps told me that he wanted us to make the determination. He didn't want to be acused of hiding the information from us. He was very disappointed in the TA.
06-03-2012, 08:28 PM
#35
Where could U B tomorrow?
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 68
None.
Use your head.
In the last hiring cycle, DCI pilots made up over half of the pilots hired.
No negotiating capital spent there.
06-03-2012, 09:24 PM
#36
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
It is management's job to figure out what could pass by 50.1%. This is a pretty good TA, short length and all. Accessing what our competitors are doing (No help whatsoever), this TA is light years better than what UA/ AA/US have. Not great, but not bad.
06-03-2012, 09:37 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
Posts: 1,724
That part is pure unadulterated union stuff. It's long been my chief complaint about ALPA. An organization that has somehow forgotten why and how ALPA exists.
This is one of those few instances where someone remembered and insisted and recognition of that is in order.
Cheers
George
06-03-2012, 09:46 PM
#38
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Position: 7ER A
Posts: 80
While the initial raise is less than it should be, that's not even my major malfunction with it. Net work rule concessions (300 less pilots by our own admission) another large amount of DC-9-10 replacement jets at the labor busters (lost leverage that we will be saddled with in C2016 by the way as we try and keep our rates up on our new used orphaned "hundred seater" 717) and the preservation of an insane and insunting vacation day rate just to name a few.
We are funding the company's DCI fleet plan, we are funding our work rules with our work rules, we are funding our "raise" with some profit sharing and we are funding the retirement bubble by paying for an early out that helps the company big time.
I could live with the rates if we got a significant increase in work rule/soft money and started to reduce large RJs. Without being single issue at all, this TA falls short in so many areas and that's OK...send it back and get it right.
We are funding the company's DCI fleet plan, we are funding our work rules with our work rules, we are funding our "raise" with some profit sharing and we are funding the retirement bubble by paying for an early out that helps the company big time.
I could live with the rates if we got a significant increase in work rule/soft money and started to reduce large RJs. Without being single issue at all, this TA falls short in so many areas and that's OK...send it back and get it right.
06-03-2012, 10:08 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: west coast wannabe
Posts: 815
I was sitting in the crew lounge today in msp, and listen to one of my rep answering some questions. All i could think of to ask was about Section 1, and we both understood the importance of how the ratio will be enforced, and we both agreed the pay issue is not on par with what we asked for. He didn't seem to think the reserve rules change is gonna affect manning formula significantly, and some of that will hinge on the new FTDT as well. He was disappointed that the TA got sent to membership though it wasn't unanimously passed in the MEC level. If they sent it back to the NC, and tweak it a bit before we've seen it, he thought it would be for the best.
Overall it wasn't much of a sales job, just some information exchange. Don't shoot the messenger, but he guesstimate the TA will pass around 65%.
Overall it wasn't much of a sales job, just some information exchange. Don't shoot the messenger, but he guesstimate the TA will pass around 65%.
06-03-2012, 11:54 PM
#40
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Quite frankly that was one of the few items in the TA that has my complete support and respect.
That part is pure unadulterated union stuff. It's long been my chief complaint about ALPA. An organization that has somehow forgotten why and how ALPA exists.
This is one of those few instances where someone remembered and insisted and recognition of that is in order.
Cheers
George
That part is pure unadulterated union stuff. It's long been my chief complaint about ALPA. An organization that has somehow forgotten why and how ALPA exists.
This is one of those few instances where someone remembered and insisted and recognition of that is in order.
Cheers
George
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
newKnow
Mergers and Acquisitions
278
04-17-2008 12:04 PM
