DFR
11-13-2012, 08:59 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: Cub Cap
Posts: 175
the sUAL MEC voted overwelmingly for the TA and just maybe it was because of a realization that they have been bargaining at a disadvantage. First, they have that pesky TRO which prevented us from managing this negotiation process the way it has been done in the past AND Second, the sUAL MEC had to deal with a future dance partner
Turning it down may be a worthwhile option to send a message, but doing so will ultimately cost the pilots $$$ in one way or another, and the next TA will not look much different. If it is rejected, plan on getting a new leadership group, officers, negotiators etc. No point in sending in the old crew.
Seriously, I would not be too hard on the reps, they knew their decision will likely pass ratification and be the final result. I know them, they are unionists, this had to be a tough call, but no doubt, they also were looking at where they would go if they rejected this TA.
Strikes are great, you make new friendships, end old ones and get an updated list.
Baron
11-13-2012, 09:29 PM
#15
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 94
Not saying the job of a rep is easy. But ego and greed are powerful motivators.
So is poverty. A 100% pay cut x2 brings one much closer to that reality. I have lived this.
As for the TA, the 'right thing' is truly to say "ENOUGH!" and vote no. Have a backbone and stand up for our battered profession. The broken record of "we have waited long enough" is weak. Remember, over 99% of your brothers and sisters voted to strike. Whether or not you would be allowed to is not the point.
Leaving us poor bastards in the dust as you pull up your ladder and say "we got ours" is reprehensible.
The point is, much of what is woefully deficient about this TA is enough to scream "No more!" But too many of the pilots here are showing more cowardice than courage. And ego and greed. A pity.
We won't forget.
SCR
So is poverty. A 100% pay cut x2 brings one much closer to that reality. I have lived this.
As for the TA, the 'right thing' is truly to say "ENOUGH!" and vote no. Have a backbone and stand up for our battered profession. The broken record of "we have waited long enough" is weak. Remember, over 99% of your brothers and sisters voted to strike. Whether or not you would be allowed to is not the point.
Leaving us poor bastards in the dust as you pull up your ladder and say "we got ours" is reprehensible.
The point is, much of what is woefully deficient about this TA is enough to scream "No more!" But too many of the pilots here are showing more cowardice than courage. And ego and greed. A pity.
We won't forget.
SCR
11-13-2012, 09:34 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: B777
Posts: 586
Here is one "REP" and they way he thinks.....name removed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, here's the answer I am giving to the furloughees who ask me about that longevity question: Who do you guys think demanded that disgusting bit of crap be in the contract? Go ask THOSE guys why it's there because frankly I have no clue how anyone could justify even suggesting that manure much less demanding that it be there. By the time I became aware of it (last week in briefings) it was so far past too late to do anything about it that I just puked and said, "Gee thanks" to our negotiators. I mean, there's a name for this kind of behavior right? A worker who steals something, career wise, from another worker? Hmm, starts with an "S"...
So I'm sorry but I got nothing for you: You're right to be unholy P---ED about it. I can't fix it, and I could not in good conscience scuttle a much needed contract for 11,000+ pilots over it. (That's what the b'tards who insisted it be in there were counting on, right?) So just like the 737 and A320 pilots in Whiteford's BK contract got thrown under the bus you get hosed. I'm not gonna lie or sugar coat it.
But here's the other problem you guys face: While you're complaining about the fly poop in this deal that costs the company more $$ per year than the Delta contract costs DAL, we're Eastern Airlines over here and Lorenzo's gang is just getting warmed up. Gimme some more of that? No thank you - I'm an LA guy, we're living the Lorenzo whipsaw dream out here La La land and it's going nowhere but fat ass ugly once we get past the end of the year and the T&PA fails. So you do the pilot thing and get your way over your short term issues but screw yourselves for life? That's what pilots do all the time! We're good at it, but I'm not going to recommend it to MY pilots.
A fat dose of reality that you wont get on the brain dead forums: You get on with putting Lorenzo's dream team behind us and WE FIX IT going forward. Any other plan is folly and I can prove it, but I'm done here on F'book. Call me XXXX, if you can take the back and forth - I'll talk until you're done and answer every question you put to me. Or log into the forums and get your blood pressure cranked up real good, open a bottle and fall over ****ed.
Cheers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, here's the answer I am giving to the furloughees who ask me about that longevity question: Who do you guys think demanded that disgusting bit of crap be in the contract? Go ask THOSE guys why it's there because frankly I have no clue how anyone could justify even suggesting that manure much less demanding that it be there. By the time I became aware of it (last week in briefings) it was so far past too late to do anything about it that I just puked and said, "Gee thanks" to our negotiators. I mean, there's a name for this kind of behavior right? A worker who steals something, career wise, from another worker? Hmm, starts with an "S"...
So I'm sorry but I got nothing for you: You're right to be unholy P---ED about it. I can't fix it, and I could not in good conscience scuttle a much needed contract for 11,000+ pilots over it. (That's what the b'tards who insisted it be in there were counting on, right?) So just like the 737 and A320 pilots in Whiteford's BK contract got thrown under the bus you get hosed. I'm not gonna lie or sugar coat it.
But here's the other problem you guys face: While you're complaining about the fly poop in this deal that costs the company more $$ per year than the Delta contract costs DAL, we're Eastern Airlines over here and Lorenzo's gang is just getting warmed up. Gimme some more of that? No thank you - I'm an LA guy, we're living the Lorenzo whipsaw dream out here La La land and it's going nowhere but fat ass ugly once we get past the end of the year and the T&PA fails. So you do the pilot thing and get your way over your short term issues but screw yourselves for life? That's what pilots do all the time! We're good at it, but I'm not going to recommend it to MY pilots.
A fat dose of reality that you wont get on the brain dead forums: You get on with putting Lorenzo's dream team behind us and WE FIX IT going forward. Any other plan is folly and I can prove it, but I'm done here on F'book. Call me XXXX, if you can take the back and forth - I'll talk until you're done and answer every question you put to me. Or log into the forums and get your blood pressure cranked up real good, open a bottle and fall over ****ed.
Cheers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11-14-2012, 04:04 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: B-777 left
Posts: 1,415
Your comment sums up the situation as well as any I have seen. Where is the leverage? A split pilot group, an uncooperative NMB, possibly one duplicitous MEC Chair and the DAL guys co-opting the RJ issue. No question this TA is woefully short of what the pilots deserve, but it is probably the best that is available without blood in the streets.
Turning it down may be a worthwhile option to send a message, but doing so will ultimately cost the pilots $$$ in one way or another, and the next TA will not look much different. If it is rejected, plan on getting a new leadership group, officers, negotiators etc. No point in sending in the old crew.
Seriously, I would not be too hard on the reps, they knew their decision will likely pass ratification and be the final result. I know them, they are unionists, this had to be a tough call, but no doubt, they also were looking at where they would go if they rejected this TA.
Strikes are great, you make new friendships, end old ones and get an updated list.
Baron
Turning it down may be a worthwhile option to send a message, but doing so will ultimately cost the pilots $$$ in one way or another, and the next TA will not look much different. If it is rejected, plan on getting a new leadership group, officers, negotiators etc. No point in sending in the old crew.
Seriously, I would not be too hard on the reps, they knew their decision will likely pass ratification and be the final result. I know them, they are unionists, this had to be a tough call, but no doubt, they also were looking at where they would go if they rejected this TA.
Strikes are great, you make new friendships, end old ones and get an updated list.
Baron
11-14-2012, 04:15 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Le Bus
Posts: 382
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
