Self funding TA?
01-01-2016, 09:44 AM
#91
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: 767/757 CA
Posts: 2,701
Adding any size aircraft to mainline is a win for the pilot group... It won't be a B scale... It will be pay rate based on aircraft size...
01-01-2016, 10:56 AM
#92
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
Allen...
"...it is obvious that has been available to the pilots as well. It begs the question, why didn't we opt for Section 6?"
Have you ever been involved with negotiations or on any ALPA committee in the past? If so you would know the problem and hyper nature of your post.
Neither side can just unilaterally say, "Let's open ____ negotiations," and expect it to happen.
You all make assumptions the MEC didn't say something like, "No we don't want a two-year extension, so let's open regular negotiations." Even if ALPA did request early opening (personally I assume they did offer this as an option) all Management has to say is NO.
The question is will a NO vote on the TA force Management to say "YES" to opening full negotiations early?
If you think so then vote NO.
And Allen... when grandiose and hyperbolic statements which make others who disagree seem like low class people, then yes we are eating our young. Names such as Kraviz and Swindells are guilty of such crimes.
"...it is obvious that has been available to the pilots as well. It begs the question, why didn't we opt for Section 6?"
Have you ever been involved with negotiations or on any ALPA committee in the past? If so you would know the problem and hyper nature of your post.
Neither side can just unilaterally say, "Let's open ____ negotiations," and expect it to happen.
You all make assumptions the MEC didn't say something like, "No we don't want a two-year extension, so let's open regular negotiations." Even if ALPA did request early opening (personally I assume they did offer this as an option) all Management has to say is NO.
The question is will a NO vote on the TA force Management to say "YES" to opening full negotiations early?
If you think so then vote NO.
And Allen... when grandiose and hyperbolic statements which make others who disagree seem like low class people, then yes we are eating our young. Names such as Kraviz and Swindells are guilty of such crimes.
01-01-2016, 12:30 PM
#93
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 846
Allen...
"...it is obvious that has been available to the pilots as well. It begs the question, why didn't we opt for Section 6?"
Have you ever been involved with negotiations or on any ALPA committee in the past? If so you would know the problem and hyper nature of your post.
Neither side can just unilaterally say, "Let's open ____ negotiations," and expect it to happen.
You all make assumptions the MEC didn't say something like, "No we don't want a two-year extension, so let's open regular negotiations." Even if ALPA did request early opening (personally I assume they did offer this as an option) all Management has to say is NO.
The question is will a NO vote on the TA force Management to say "YES" to opening full negotiations early?
If you think so then vote NO.
And Allen... when grandiose and hyperbolic statements which make others who disagree seem like low class people, then yes we are eating our young. Names such as Kraviz and Swindells are guilty of such crimes.
"...it is obvious that has been available to the pilots as well. It begs the question, why didn't we opt for Section 6?"
Have you ever been involved with negotiations or on any ALPA committee in the past? If so you would know the problem and hyper nature of your post.
Neither side can just unilaterally say, "Let's open ____ negotiations," and expect it to happen.
You all make assumptions the MEC didn't say something like, "No we don't want a two-year extension, so let's open regular negotiations." Even if ALPA did request early opening (personally I assume they did offer this as an option) all Management has to say is NO.
The question is will a NO vote on the TA force Management to say "YES" to opening full negotiations early?
If you think so then vote NO.
And Allen... when grandiose and hyperbolic statements which make others who disagree seem like low class people, then yes we are eating our young. Names such as Kraviz and Swindells are guilty of such crimes.
The ball is now in the pilots court - I expect it to pass because many want to do something, even if wrong. The biggest problem for the pilots is the make up of the legacy groups and post merger hires. One legacy was more about getting the cash at the expense of the quality of contract and the other more aimed at maintain quality contract at the expense of a cash. New hires coming from the military and commuters thinking the pay/contract is not that bad considering what they had before. Without leadership the end result is what we see.
What I'd like to see is a MEC Chairman go straight at the company with the full force of a unified pilot group behind him. Otherwise, we'll continue to flounder picking the low hanging fruit while the steak walks right by.
You bring up Kraviz and Swindells name trying to give some creditability to the notion that bullies are trying to rule. Fact is, to the best of my knowledge, neither of these guys have done anything to benefit themselves at the expense of other pilots. Good try?
For the record, hurt feeling brought us the worst group of MEC Chairman starting with Paul Whiteford on the LUAL side and I don't think the LCAL side has done much in that area either.
01-01-2016, 02:07 PM
#94
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
You bring up Kraviz and Swindells name trying to give some creditability to the notion that bullies are trying to rule. Fact is, to the best of my knowledge, neither of these guys have done anything to benefit themselves at the expense of other pilots. Good try?
For the record, hurt feeling brought us the worst group of MEC Chairman starting with Paul Whiteford on the LUAL side and I don't think the LCAL side has done much in that area either.
For the record, hurt feeling brought us the worst group of MEC Chairman starting with Paul Whiteford on the LUAL side and I don't think the LCAL side has done much in that area either.
01-01-2016, 02:18 PM
#95
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
Allen...
The reason I bring up those two isn't about how or even if they benefit themselves at all. The issue is how they (and others like them) basically belittle and bully those with different opinions and ideas. Swindells goes over the edge to the point he constantly paints the picture of his superiority over others. This kind of stuff just defeats their ideas.
What I would suggest is such bloggery, if that could be a verb, gets little done.
However, your last post was one of if not the best one I've read from you so far. No mockery, hyperbole, or put downs in attempting to make your point. I might even agree with you about the "push" (which could work).
At one time I had a passing thought that because of the way Swindells treats fellow pilots in the blogs I was considered making him the first ALPA brother I would deny the jump seat to. But it was just a passing idea.
Keep it civil!
PS I worked directly with Rick D in the day. So I know the man beyond the myths. Most of what you hear is true, however be aware he was never about total pilot numbers or juniority. It was all about max pay, benefits and QOL.
The reason I bring up those two isn't about how or even if they benefit themselves at all. The issue is how they (and others like them) basically belittle and bully those with different opinions and ideas. Swindells goes over the edge to the point he constantly paints the picture of his superiority over others. This kind of stuff just defeats their ideas.
What I would suggest is such bloggery, if that could be a verb, gets little done.
However, your last post was one of if not the best one I've read from you so far. No mockery, hyperbole, or put downs in attempting to make your point. I might even agree with you about the "push" (which could work).
At one time I had a passing thought that because of the way Swindells treats fellow pilots in the blogs I was considered making him the first ALPA brother I would deny the jump seat to. But it was just a passing idea.
Keep it civil!
PS I worked directly with Rick D in the day. So I know the man beyond the myths. Most of what you hear is true, however be aware he was never about total pilot numbers or juniority. It was all about max pay, benefits and QOL.
01-01-2016, 07:26 PM
#96
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: 767/757 CA
Posts: 2,701
Allen...
The reason I bring up those two isn't about how or even if they benefit themselves at all. The issue is how they (and others like them) basically belittle and bully those with different opinions and ideas. Swindells goes over the edge to the point he constantly paints the picture of his superiority over others. This kind of stuff just defeats their ideas.
What I would suggest is such bloggery, if that could be a verb, gets little done.
However, your last post was one of if not the best one I've read from you so far. No mockery, hyperbole, or put downs in attempting to make your point. I might even agree with you about the "push" (which could work).
At one time I had a passing thought that because of the way Swindells treats fellow pilots in the blogs I was considered making him the first ALPA brother I would deny the jump seat to. But it was just a passing idea.
Keep it civil!
PS I worked directly with Rick D in the day. So I know the man beyond the myths. Most of what you hear is true, however be aware he was never about total pilot numbers or juniority. It was all about max pay, benefits and QOL.
The reason I bring up those two isn't about how or even if they benefit themselves at all. The issue is how they (and others like them) basically belittle and bully those with different opinions and ideas. Swindells goes over the edge to the point he constantly paints the picture of his superiority over others. This kind of stuff just defeats their ideas.
What I would suggest is such bloggery, if that could be a verb, gets little done.
However, your last post was one of if not the best one I've read from you so far. No mockery, hyperbole, or put downs in attempting to make your point. I might even agree with you about the "push" (which could work).
At one time I had a passing thought that because of the way Swindells treats fellow pilots in the blogs I was considered making him the first ALPA brother I would deny the jump seat to. But it was just a passing idea.
Keep it civil!
PS I worked directly with Rick D in the day. So I know the man beyond the myths. Most of what you hear is true, however be aware he was never about total pilot numbers or juniority. It was all about max pay, benefits and QOL.
01-01-2016, 07:32 PM
#97
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 430
Allen...
"...it is obvious that has been available to the pilots as well. It begs the question, why didn't we opt for Section 6?"
Have you ever been involved with negotiations or on any ALPA committee in the past? If so you would know the problem and hyper nature of your post.
Neither side can just unilaterally say, "Let's open ____ negotiations," and expect it to happen.
You all make assumptions the MEC didn't say something like, "No we don't want a two-year extension, so let's open regular negotiations." Even if ALPA did request early opening (personally I assume they did offer this as an option) all Management has to say is NO.
The question is will a NO vote on the TA force Management to say "YES" to opening full negotiations early?
If you think so then vote NO.
And Allen... when grandiose and hyperbolic statements which make others who disagree seem like low class people, then yes we are eating our young. Names such as Kraviz and Swindells are guilty of such crimes.
"...it is obvious that has been available to the pilots as well. It begs the question, why didn't we opt for Section 6?"
Have you ever been involved with negotiations or on any ALPA committee in the past? If so you would know the problem and hyper nature of your post.
Neither side can just unilaterally say, "Let's open ____ negotiations," and expect it to happen.
You all make assumptions the MEC didn't say something like, "No we don't want a two-year extension, so let's open regular negotiations." Even if ALPA did request early opening (personally I assume they did offer this as an option) all Management has to say is NO.
The question is will a NO vote on the TA force Management to say "YES" to opening full negotiations early?
If you think so then vote NO.
And Allen... when grandiose and hyperbolic statements which make others who disagree seem like low class people, then yes we are eating our young. Names such as Kraviz and Swindells are guilty of such crimes.
Last edited by UalHvy; 01-01-2016 at 07:33 PM. Reason: word misspelling
01-01-2016, 08:01 PM
#98
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
There's nothing in this TA.....Nothing but 13%......SEC 6 will produce better than nothing I gurantee that, and I will benifits more from QOL improvements and work rules than I ever will with money now.
I don't think there is a good enough reason to go into talks With 5 items and Come out with 2 1/2, MOU 22 replacement is only for widebody pilots so it counts as a half since it left out half the airline. MOU22 could be reinstated if the company agreed to play ball, no need to negotiate that. FRMS could have/can be done as an LOA. So if you really look at it there is NOTHING in this TA just a 2 year cash buyout.
NO NO NO
I don't think there is a good enough reason to go into talks With 5 items and Come out with 2 1/2, MOU 22 replacement is only for widebody pilots so it counts as a half since it left out half the airline. MOU22 could be reinstated if the company agreed to play ball, no need to negotiate that. FRMS could have/can be done as an LOA. So if you really look at it there is NOTHING in this TA just a 2 year cash buyout.
NO NO NO
For FRMS relief, and MOU 22, we are getting a pay raise, and 5 other items. You suggest, we give those away for free, so we can't enter Section 6, without them as leverage?
Please expand on this so my feeble mind can understand?
01-01-2016, 09:50 PM
#99
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,244
That said, guys are getting all spooled up about pay rates for an airplane we won't see until, optimistically, 2018 at the earliest. Guess what happens then?
01-02-2016, 12:00 AM
#100
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
A "B" scale, is someone who flies the same, for less money. ALPA ROE is smaller, less money. Cs100 and EM195 should pay less, by ALPA ROE.
FWIW, I prefer UPS pay system. Pay for seniority. Not size. Seat, and longevity, only.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
