Flytolive

You really need to RTFPs. I was asked,and I said,I have repeatedly said that IMO specific aircraft orders should have no bearing on this TA, the MR vote or any pilot contract for that matter. Scope is where the contractual attention should be WRT to aircraft.



Nobody 'removed it.' The company's efforts to complete an order fell through and the MEC voted to ignore that and the reserve improvement parts of their own direction.

Consuela

Dude, back up your claims or stop talking.

And btw, the MEC direction was to DISCUSS those bullet points (and only those bullet points). They were discussed and beared no fruit...that is the most troubling part of the con letter for me; The pushing of this talking point that makes NO difference to what we are looking at.

That and A.C. claiming that a "TA" wasn't reached by the deadline, only an AIP. I respect the dissent that can argue based on merit...

Flytolive

Wrong again. Here is the language from that part of the resolution yet again.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any agreement for the contract extension shall include the following items:

a) ALPA’s negotiation expenses shall be reimbursed by the Company to include any
expenses related to a Special MEC meeting required to consider an extension LOA
b) The timeline for completing negotiations not to extend past Friday, November 20,
2015.
c) The topics for discussion to include only those limited number of items listed in P.
Douglas McKeen’s October 2, 2015 letter:
i. Compensation
ii. Retroactive longevity for furloughees for pay and vacation
iii. MOU 22 replacement
iv. Reserve assignment process improvements
v. FRMS
d) A firm order for NSNBs on the United Mainline property flown by pilots on the United Airlines seniority list
e) The length of the proposed extension not to exceed two (2) years[/I]

Consuela

Ugh...the NSNB has been discussed ad nauseam and the facts aren't good enough for you. And yet you still offer nothing to back up your bs claims.

Consuela

Just for clarification that the NC didn't follow MEC direction for reserve improvements..

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any agreement for the contract extension shall include the following items:

a) ALPA’s negotiation expenses shall be reimbursed by the Company to include any
expenses related to a Special MEC meeting required to consider an extension LOA
b) The timeline for completing negotiations not to extend past Friday, November 20,
2015.
c) The topics for discussion to include only those limited number of items listed in P.
Douglas McKeen’s October 2, 2015 letter:
i. Compensation
ii. Retroactive longevity for furloughees for pay and vacation
iii. MOU 22 replacement
iv. Reserve assignment process improvements
v. FRMS
d)*A firm order for NSNBs on the United Mainline property flown by pilots on the United Airlines seniority list
e) The length of the proposed extension not to exceed two (2) years[/I]

gettinbumped

You keep saying this but haven't produced anything to back that claim up.

As to the latter, that's the way negotiations work. You make adjustments based on the fact that things are fluid and dynamic, especially in a compressed timeline. That's why they are called "negotiations". I'm glad the vast majority of the MEC understands that.

Scott Stoops

Artificially compressed timeline. Windows open, windows close. Who held the cards? Who folded?

Scott

svergin

Imagine we were a 747, 777, 787 only airline, and the company wanted to make it like is today with 757, 737, Bus all you'd hear is guys complaining about how low the 73 and Bus rates are and its a B-scale. These airplanes pay less because they are smaller. If you don't want to fly it, don't bid it. Its not a B-scale. Its an appropriate scale for the airplane.

I don't really see downside from the 100 seat jets and the appropriate pay. We wanted to do that flying instead of another airline, and now we are going to have it, and all guys do is complain.

None of those are reasons to vote no. There are lots of other ones.

Scott Stoops

Disagree. It is every bit as capable as a 500, 700 or 319. Wait until we park those jets for more cs100s paying $40 less an hour. Then the outrage will be obvious.

svergin

You mean just like we are parking 737s and Airbuses now for all those 100 seat jet payscales in C2012?

The company can park 737s and Airbuses any time they want, and if they buy a 100 seat jet, we are going to fly them for what ever the arbitrator decides, which is probably going to be about or less than what we will be paid with the TA.

And you say they are "just as capable" but last time I checked these are 100 seat jets, and the 700 and 319 each carry closer to 140 people, so as a percentage, these actually pay more per seat.