Possible T/A for MEC Review??
08-08-2012, 08:45 AM
#211
Need More Callouts
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Unbridled Enthusiasm
Posts: 2,143
Tsquare,
Not saying you caved, but:
You guys did an outstanding job by getting a new contract prior to ammendable date.
How did that happen? One reason only;the company wanted something from you, they got it, and they paid dearly.
That upped the ante for our negotiations and it is tough to get your pay without the concession to scope that came with it.
Yes you tightened up your language which always makes the attorneys happy, but the fact is you bought and paid for your own raise.
Time will tell whether it was a good purchase but waaaaaaaay too early to make that call.
Not saying you caved, but:
You guys did an outstanding job by getting a new contract prior to ammendable date.
How did that happen? One reason only;the company wanted something from you, they got it, and they paid dearly.
That upped the ante for our negotiations and it is tough to get your pay without the concession to scope that came with it.
Yes you tightened up your language which always makes the attorneys happy, but the fact is you bought and paid for your own raise.
Time will tell whether it was a good purchase but waaaaaaaay too early to make that call.
IMO a huge mistake letting that cat out of the bag and reason enough for a no vote.
08-08-2012, 08:51 AM
#212
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
08-08-2012, 08:57 AM
#213
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Tsquare,
Not saying you caved, but:
You guys did an outstanding job by getting a new contract prior to ammendable date.
How did that happen? One reason only;the company wanted something from you, they got it, and they paid dearly.
That upped the ante for our negotiations and it is tough to get your pay without the concession to scope that came with it.
Yes you tightened up your language which always makes the attorneys happy, but the fact is you bought and paid for your own raise.
Time will tell whether it was a good purchase but waaaaaaaay too early to make that call.
Not saying you caved, but:
You guys did an outstanding job by getting a new contract prior to ammendable date.
How did that happen? One reason only;the company wanted something from you, they got it, and they paid dearly.
That upped the ante for our negotiations and it is tough to get your pay without the concession to scope that came with it.
Yes you tightened up your language which always makes the attorneys happy, but the fact is you bought and paid for your own raise.
Time will tell whether it was a good purchase but waaaaaaaay too early to make that call.
What I really wish for ya'll is that your MECs can get together and fight your common enemy instead of each other. Rip off the bandaid, and get it over with. Then we can all get on with the task of taking this profession back to where it needs to be.
Believe it or not, we are all pulling for you..
08-08-2012, 08:59 AM
#214
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Great post Flap and oh so true. Don't forget folks, DAL already had this language from a previous contract for the 70+ seat jets whereas CAL and UAL did not. We should have received something well in excess of their agreement for allowing it at all.
IMO a huge mistake letting that cat out of the bag and reason enough for a no vote.
IMO a huge mistake letting that cat out of the bag and reason enough for a no vote.
08-08-2012, 09:01 AM
#215
Underpaid...
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: French-Canadian
Posts: 2,101
08-08-2012, 09:40 AM
#217
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Posts: 206
And DAL 70+ seats are 90 seat airframes, let me say that again: 90 seat airframes!!! yes they are configured to 76 seats, one day in MX and those airframes now contain 90 seats.
I really hope DAL's scope clause is iron clad, cause the camel not only has his nose under the tent, 3/4's of him is already in the tent. The pilots of UCH have ZERO trust in our management team to abide by any contract.
liquid
08-08-2012, 09:42 AM
#218
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Capt
Posts: 2,049
08-08-2012, 12:58 PM
#219
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Position: 747 Captain, retired
Posts: 928
I can make up any number I want and insert it here. It's simply BS until we actually see the print on the TA.
Then everyone can come back here and righteously bisch about it. And no matter what it is good or bad there will be folks bisching about it.
I remember hearing complaints about contract 2000 when it came out.
Then everyone can come back here and righteously bisch about it. And no matter what it is good or bad there will be folks bisching about it.
I remember hearing complaints about contract 2000 when it came out.
08-08-2012, 04:16 PM
#220
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
Great post Flap and oh so true. Don't forget folks, DAL already had this language from a previous contract for the 70+ seat jets whereas CAL and UAL did not. We should have received something well in excess of their agreement for allowing it at all.
IMO a huge mistake letting that cat out of the bag and reason enough for a no vote.
IMO a huge mistake letting that cat out of the bag and reason enough for a no vote.
DAL was already operating 76 seat jets outsourced. UAL is already operating 70 seat jets outsourced. It is an "equal" move if Jeffery wants MORE of what is already permitted (well for the CAL side it is 50's).
It is BEE ESS if Jeffey wants a "increased" size for a "not increased" Delta Dot.
I'm hoping that UCAL gets a "hard cap" in the 350-425 range(or better of course) with the current size "express fleet", which will best the DAL small jet scope.
BUT WAIT! There is a LOT more in a scope clause though to get an "equitable scope" (or better) to that of DAL:
Scope is more than RJ's, and I truly believe the UCAL JNC knows it.... The question is whether Jeffey and his minions are being pressured by the NMB hard enough to make sure it gets put in the CBA.
UCAL will have to severely reign in/eliminate the USAir Codeshare and introduce much tighter international codeshare and JV language (Aer Lingus ending is a good sign I hope).
Flow down language for furloughs, the removal of seats from UAX large jets if ANY pilot is furloughed, longevity for furlough.
Block hour ratios for mainline domestic/UAX that shift more towards mainline over time, range limitations on UAX flying, hub-to-hub limitations on UAX flying, all of which will take serious negotiation to restrict the usefulness of UAX.
This is a fellow ALPA pilot who has and will continue to walk the UCAL picket lines until you have an industry leading contract.
IMHO, the "AIP" announcement is a waste of breath. Until it is in actual language for the MEC's to preview, there is absolutely NO CHANGE to the present situation. Total nonsense, it should NEVER have even become public that a "concept" was agreed upon.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
