Here comes the Hard Sell

Reply Subscribe

Page 6 of 6

« First

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

06-27-2022, 06:01 PM

#51

ytumama

Line Holder

Joined APC: May 2018

Posts: 62

Quote:

Originally Posted by TodKindrsChikun

That might very well be true. If it is rejected I’d prefer that those who had anything to do with this product be removed from the process. That ranges from the negotiators, the LECs (including the one who voted against to save his hide knowing it was going to pass anyway) to the MEC Chairman.

It was very clear to me after listening to the presentation that they got too invested in this deal after working on it for so long. They seem upset that there are a lot of people calling their baby ugly rather than taking an objective view.

06-27-2022, 06:15 PM

#52

StewBlu

Line Holder

Joined APC: Jan 2018

Posts: 95

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoCats67

Can "only" bring in retired guys if there aren't enough "qualified applicants" from the line pilot ranks. So, ALPA says that won't be a problem since we are raising the PI pay.

What they fail to mention is that Management controls the hiring process, so they get to define "qualified." Which means they can hire as many retired pilots as they want if they determine that the line pilot applicant is not a good choice. Management has complete discretion on that, so when they decide there are plenty of applicants from the retiree pool that will do it for 50%, why would they ever hire another line applicant.

And somehow they (ALPA) says with a straight face that there are no Scope concessions???????

Incorrect. 23-A-3 spells out what “qualified” is.

I voted AGAINST but the disinformation is bothersome. I’d like every pilot to make an educated vote based on facts.

06-28-2022, 01:33 AM

#53

Andy

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Mar 2006

Position: guppy CA

Posts: 5,171

Quote:

Originally Posted by StewBlu

Incorrect. 23-A-3 spells out what “qualified” is.

I voted AGAINST but the disinformation is bothersome. I’d like every pilot to make an educated vote based on facts.

I assume you meant 23-A-4, not 23-A-3.

Aren't you splitting hairs tho - 12 bid periods as a line pilot vs off of probation is pretty darned close. I think you'd find that the two subsets are almost identical. 12 bid periods as a line is slightly more restrictive, but not by much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ytumama

That's a good assessment.

06-28-2022, 02:06 AM

#54

CALPilotToo

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Sep 2005

Posts: 463

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHAIRMAN

Qualified is out lined in the agreement is section 23. No they can't change the definition. Can't be on probation and you're qualified.

Whats qualified? If qualified simply means qualified then why is there a need for an interview or resume with cover letter? One should simply be able to go into CCS and check a box wanting to be at TK and the next position goes to them if the Qualified is simply qualified.

06-28-2022, 07:50 AM

#55

Augerin

Line Holder

Joined APC: Sep 2020

Posts: 43

This

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maingear

Recall...

RECALL, RECALL, RECALL, RECALL, RECALL, RECALL, RECALL, RECALL, RECALL, RECALL.

There is nothing more important now, than to Recall these guys!

06-28-2022, 07:56 AM

#56

Augerin

Line Holder

Joined APC: Sep 2020

Posts: 43

Get rid of them!

Quote:

Originally Posted by 89Pistons

All of them. The MC. All of the MEC yes voters. All of the NC. All of those who help sell this. All of them. They won't be able to walk away from this clean. They aren't working for us anymore. They are the larger threat than Kirby himself.

We need to get rid of them all!

06-28-2022, 08:07 AM

#57

GoCats67

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Sep 2013

Posts: 940

Quote:

Originally Posted by StewBlu

Incorrect. 23-A-3 spells out what “qualified” is.

I voted AGAINST but the disinformation is bothersome. I’d like every pilot to make an educated vote based on facts.

It is not disinformation!. The qualified you are referring to is the minimums to apply. Management still has the ultimate decision on who is "qualified." If you don't think so then you have no idea how past practice effects everything in the contract world. We have been having interviews for PI positions for years, all of those applicants met the contractual definition of qualified that you refer to, but not all of them were deemed qualified by the interview process. This is the way PIs have been selected for years and there is no change to any language requiring the company to accept all pilots that meet the minimums, so they absolutely control the final determination of who is "qualified."

Glad you voted no, but don't give an inch on the intention/ability of the company to exploit this scope give to the maximum extent they can. (the way they have every other one we have given in the past)