redflyer65
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2004
- Posts
- 4,456
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Pinnacle MEC Chairman Recall
- Thread starter redflyer65
- Start date
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Mel Sharples
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2004
- Posts
- 313
Let me guess... Some of the fo's are pissed because the PNCL MEC chairman said he would push for one list and it needs to be fair to all. They smell a quick upgrade and flying the 900 out of MSP and DTW and they think Mesaba pilots should get 4 for 1 seniority because of an LOA that was written before they were even flying airplanes.
Uhh... okay.
It's not a conspiracy, if you asked your reps and conveyed your thoughts and feelings to your reps you would know all you want. That being said I can assure that communication will come out after the meeting and bring out all the highlights of the agenda points. Feel free to continue with the theories, it's at least entertaining.
i fly boxes
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2006
- Posts
- 848
Its not the f/o's or the junior captains that are talking about this. This is all started by two very senior low life captains that have nothing better to do than complain.Let me guess... Some of the fo's are pissed because the PNCL MEC chairman said he would push for one list and it needs to be fair to all. They smell a quick upgrade and flying the 900 out of MSP and DTW and they think Mesaba pilots should get 4 for 1 seniority because of an LOA that was written before they were even flying airplanes.
Uhh... okay.
I know its hard to belive the the majority of the pilots at pinnacle want whats best for all involved. The problem is is that none of them are on this board.
This is a terrible idea suggested by some terribly ignorant people. This pilot group is divided. But it would be as divided or more under leadership that embodied the goals of those that don't like Scott.
Those that desire this recall want to settle for whatever the company is offering, but above all, they want to avoid an nmb release at ALL COST. That is really what this is about.
Those that desire this recall want to settle for whatever the company is offering, but above all, they want to avoid an nmb release at ALL COST. That is really what this is about.
This is a terrible idea suggested by some terribly ignorant people. This pilot group is divided. But it would be as divided or more under leadership that embodied the goals of those that don't like Scott.
Those that desire this recall want to settle for whatever the company is offering, but above all, they want to avoid an nmb release at ALL COST. That is really what this is about.
Those that desire this recall want to settle for whatever the company is offering, but above all, they want to avoid an nmb release at ALL COST. That is really what this is about.
There are some fo's that want the upgrade as stated above. The majority of those that want to screw msa pilots are actually senior captains. It is very sad, and they are numerous, but far from majority. The good news is that they are not in leadership positions for the most part. For now. As usual, the south is the enemy of msa seniority and a respectable contract.
From what I can gather, a lot of people are blaming the MEC chair for us being put on ice. Their claim is if health care hadn't hit the table, we wouldn't have been put on ice, and if we hadn't brought up 401k as a negotiating item, health care wouldn't have been brought up. I don't see how that logic pans out. Once TA1 was voted down, the whole thing pretty much became a list of items that could be reopened. I wasn't shocked at all the company (read that again, the COMPANY) re-opened health care. They've made it no secret they want us under a cheaper health care plan the whole time. Some people assume that just because "retirmement and insurance" are linked in a section on the contract, that's why health care was re-opened. The company could easily have decided to re-open it in response to negotiating for trip/duty rigs, days off, hours of service, compensation or just because they felt like it. Some around here seem to think that the union is the only side of the table that could re-open items.
It's not the junior CAs or FOs at all. There are some that don't agree with the leadership, and even more that are disappointed at the lack of communications from the MEC level. Our LEC reps do a great job of keeping us informed, but little from the MEC level. Even a "no news this week" e-mail may keep some pacified. However, I don't think that warrants a re-call. Now, if someone did "go rogue," then that should have its consequences. Recalling the chairman and putting someone else in place could slow things down even more than they are now. Who knows how the NMB will look at it, and the company will just sit back, laugh and light their cigars with $100 bills. Installing a MEC chair with the views of those that are screaming for the recall may, in fact, divide the pilot group MORE rather than "unify" us. I've spoken to both of my reps, told them how I feel, and I trust them to make the correct call at the MEC meeting.
It's not the junior CAs or FOs at all. There are some that don't agree with the leadership, and even more that are disappointed at the lack of communications from the MEC level. Our LEC reps do a great job of keeping us informed, but little from the MEC level. Even a "no news this week" e-mail may keep some pacified. However, I don't think that warrants a re-call. Now, if someone did "go rogue," then that should have its consequences. Recalling the chairman and putting someone else in place could slow things down even more than they are now. Who knows how the NMB will look at it, and the company will just sit back, laugh and light their cigars with $100 bills. Installing a MEC chair with the views of those that are screaming for the recall may, in fact, divide the pilot group MORE rather than "unify" us. I've spoken to both of my reps, told them how I feel, and I trust them to make the correct call at the MEC meeting.
altimaklr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Posts
- 467
Seems like their first attempt today failed... it was a straight Memphis versus everyone else vote.
It's a South versus North thing - a lot of the guys in Memphis are still stinging after their fishing buddies got kicked out of the union after the first TA failed and are attempting to regain power. I really am disappointed that my reps would try to change leadership right in the middle of a merger. It is also true the senior crowd in MEM, especially some checkairmen that everyone know about, would like nothing more than to secure their bonus and pass any TA that will solidify their gravy train for another 5-10 years. Really pathetic.
It's a South versus North thing - a lot of the guys in Memphis are still stinging after their fishing buddies got kicked out of the union after the first TA failed and are attempting to regain power. I really am disappointed that my reps would try to change leadership right in the middle of a merger. It is also true the senior crowd in MEM, especially some checkairmen that everyone know about, would like nothing more than to secure their bonus and pass any TA that will solidify their gravy train for another 5-10 years. Really pathetic.
Last edited:
... I am IN the meeting and it hasn't had any vote. When you get a message from us- you will have the facts.
i fly boxes
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2006
- Posts
- 848
That is for your reps to do.
Inconceivable
huh
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2005
- Posts
- 578
altimaklr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Posts
- 467
I got this in my email TODAY from the union...
-Resolution on mandatory currency for all on full time buyout brought by "MEMPHIS" was failed with a vote of 2 in favor (your Memphis reps) and 6 opposing
It is important to note that the MEC policy manual does encourage all those on full time buy to keep their currency levels up; however this resolution was written to make that a mandatory requirement. (obviously aimed at our chairman)
-Resolution on mandatory currency for all on full time buyout brought by "MEMPHIS" was failed with a vote of 2 in favor (your Memphis reps) and 6 opposing
It is important to note that the MEC policy manual does encourage all those on full time buy to keep their currency levels up; however this resolution was written to make that a mandatory requirement. (obviously aimed at our chairman)
kmox29
I'm open! I'm open!
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2005
- Posts
- 527
"12345?...Sounds like the combination an idiot would have on his luggage!"
The resolution was for currency of those on full time buy, not anything else. If you look on the email we sent yesterday it was on yesterday's agenda.
AFAIK, no one. However, that wasn't a recall vote. That was a policy vote, and a policy I agree with. Anyone else on the seniority list lets their currency lapse, they stop getting paid by the company. I don't think it's that big of a deal to have the MEC chair (whomever it may be) go to the sim every 6 months to stay current.
altimaklr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Posts
- 467
The MEC chairman is not getting paid by the company, he is getting paid by the union. Is it really fair to expect him to go in for a jeopardy event every 6 months when he is not flying during that previous 6 months? I wouldn't want to do that. I seriously doubt John Prater goes in for PC's.
Raoul Duke
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2008
- Posts
- 932
redflyer65
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2004
- Posts
- 4,456
Well, what happened? Did you not have the votes to do such stupid fuc*#@$ thing?
Why, you guys foolishly wanted it so bad???
ChickenSled
Am I Evil...Yes I Am
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2006
- Posts
- 129
Perhaps you should work in one of those positions before you make a judgement call about that. I don't think the average pilot has even the slightest clue the amount of work that goes into being an MEC Chairman during contract negotiations.
Thank God!
Easy, man. Remember, I'm not one of the lynch mob. I'm just saying it could go a long way towards smoothing tensions over. Plus, there's this:
How many other ALPA MECs have it as mandatory? Honest question. If it's "very, very few," then why even make it an encouragement to stay current?
Last edited:
Not very many have it mandatory. Most of them encourage it, but that usually falls by the wayside when lots of work is going on, like during contract negotiations, bankruptcies, mergers, etc. Frankly, it shouldn't even be encouraged at all. When you elect someone to run your union, that should be their primary job. Flying airplanes and taking checkrides is nothing more than a distraction from their primary job of representing your interests.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
