ASA union meeting

[PCL_128]

and it wouldn't have made a difference if GLA was ALPA...

We'll never know. It's quite possible that it could have made a difference, but that's all theory. The fact remains that ALPA has maintained an excellent reputation in Washington, and the Teamsters have been viewed for decades as crazy radicals.

Did you know that it was ASA ALPA that wanted things to drag out initially? The logic was that things would improve.... maybe that wasn't such a great strategy after all....

But then again, maybe it was. Until you see the finished product, it's ridiculous to cast any strategy in a bad light. In my opinion, there is nothing the ASA MEC could have done, short of just rolling over and taking a truly horrendous TA, that could have shortened this process.

Did you know that we were still asking for big raises on the 700 and a B-fund retirement plan 4+ years into the game? Think that may have played a factor? We have since dropped those demands.

No, I don't think that played a factor. In fact, I was somewhat disappointed when I saw that the MEC had reduced their payrate demands for the -700. I consider the current ASA ALPA proposal to be bare-bones.

We are still making progress at the table... all be it small progress... As long as that continues, there will be no impasse declared.

We'll see. I predict a cooling off period by the middle of October.

 

[JoeMerchant]

We'll never know. It's quite possible that it could have made a difference, but that's all theory. The fact remains that ALPA has maintained an excellent reputation in Washington, and the Teamsters have been viewed for decades as crazy radicals.

That's not what you said in a previous post. You said the only way to get a release with this administration is if management either wants it, or if they screw up... Those were YOUR words, not mine. That would be the same regardless of whether GLA was ALPA or Teamsters. In addition, you still haven't addressed how World got released with the Teamsters...

But then again, maybe it was. Until you see the finished product, it's ridiculous to cast any strategy in a bad light. In my opinion, there is nothing the ASA MEC could have done, short of just rolling over and taking a truly horrendous TA, that could have shortened this process.

Whether it was the right strategy or not, it does partially account for the length of these negotiations. The 700 rates would have been higher had we "rolled over" earlier on. The pattern rate hadn't been decimated as it has now... you do understand how pattern bargaining works don't you?

No, I don't think that played a factor. In fact, I was somewhat disappointed when I saw that the MEC had reduced their payrate demands for the -700. I consider the current ASA ALPA proposal to be bare-bones.

That's because the election had an effect. You, like some of our hard-liners want to ignore pattern bargaining because you only like it when it goes up.... you don't like it when it goes the other way...

 

[PCL_128]

That's not what you said in a previous post. You said the only way to get a release with this administration is if management either wants it, or if they screw up... Those were YOUR words, not mine.

No, Joe, that's not what I said. You left out some key words there. I said that the only way to get released in a reasonable amount of time, which I defined as less than about 3 years, would require management to either screw up or to want it/not care. Both ASA and GLA are far past a "reasonable time frame" now, and have been for a while, so that doesn't really apply.

The pattern rate hadn't been decimated as it has now... you do understand how pattern bargaining works don't you?

The pattern rate hadn't been driven down yet, but it was clear where it was headed. Trying to get a good rate in that environment was impossible. I was grateful that the CBA at PCL wasn't amendable until mid-2005 for that very reason. It allowed some time for the market to stabilize and for the effects of 9/11 to subside. Yes, the pattern had been moving in the wrong direction, but the pattern always reverses at some point.

 

[JoeMerchant]

No, Joe, that's not what I said. You left out some key words there. I said that the only way to get released in a reasonable amount of time, which I defined as less than about 3 years, would require management to either screw up or to want it/not care. Both ASA and GLA are far past a "reasonable time frame" now, and have been for a while, so that doesn't really apply.

Then you don't really understand the NMB and the RLA. Length of negotiations is not a factor. The primary factor the NMB looks at is how BOTH sides proposals, in entirety, compare to the other carriers in the same tier... You should know that....

GLA, by the way finally accepted the arbitrators ruling a full 6 years into the process... which was the companies last offer 2 years prior...


[/quote]
The pattern rate hadn't been driven down yet, but it was clear where it was headed. Trying to get a good rate in that environment was impossible. I was grateful that the CBA at PCL wasn't amendable until mid-2005 for that very reason. It allowed some time for the market to stabilize and for the effects of 9/11 to subside. Yes, the pattern had been moving in the wrong direction, but the pattern always reverses at some point.[/quote]

The company would have matched the CMR rates early on in the process, but we wanted more.... It was a mistake....

 

[PCL_128]

Then you don't really understand the NMB and the RLA. Length of negotiations is not a factor.

You're talking theory, I'm talking practice. As a practical matter, length of negotiations is a factor at this point. The NMB will not be able to keep this held up indefinitely. The company's pull with the NMB will eventually reach a breaking point.

 

[DrunkIrishman]

Why don't you two take this debate to a private mail environment. I am tired of reading only your posts. Give someone else a chance to offer their insight on the discussion.

 

[JoeMerchant]

You're talking theory, I'm talking practice. As a practical matter, length of negotiations is a factor at this point. The NMB will not be able to keep this held up indefinitely. The company's pull with the NMB will eventually reach a breaking point.

No I am talking statute. There is no time requirement pure and simple. If, in the opinion of the NMB, the labor side is being unreasonable, the NMB has the legal authority to allow negotiations to go indefinately. That is a fact.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Why don't you two take this debate to a private mail environment. I am tired of reading only your posts. Give someone else a chance to offer their insight on the discussion.

If you have something to add, feel free, I would encourage it... If you don't like reading what PCL_128 and I have to say, then simply don't read it....

We will both gladly give you a chance to offer your insight....

 

[PCL_128]

No I am talking statute. There is no time requirement pure and simple. If, in the opinion of the NMB, the labor side is being unreasonable, the NMB has the legal authority to allow negotiations to go indefinately. That is a fact.

I agree that there is no legal requirement, but politics is politics. Congress has the authority for oversight of the NMB, and a largely labor-friendly Senate and House will eventually get involved if the NMB doesn't clean up their act. It's only a matter of where that breaking point is. Personally, I believe they're getting very close.

 

[PCL_128]

If you have something to add, feel free, I would encourage it... If you don't like reading what PCL_128 and I have to say, then simply don't read it....

We will both gladly give you a chance to offer your insight....

For once, I agree with Joe 100%. :beer:

 

[JoeMerchant]

For once, I agree with Joe 100%. :beer:

That's not true.... for the most part we agree on political issues also... We gave Rez. a run for his money on the gun issue....

Your just to drunk on ALPA koolaid....:beer:

 

[ASACAPT]

Why were you not there JB?

You come on this board all the time slamming the ASA leadership, but you dont have the balls to show up at the LEC meeting and voice your opinion. Its time for you to go away. We are all sick uf your BS.

 

[DrunkIrishman]

Joe-

I just did "add" something. I was trying to politely invite you two to have your pissing contest elsewhere so that I didn't have to page through the bickering before I got to someone offering substance. Agree to disagree with each other and move on.

 

[Airboss]

I personally think the alpa meeting went well. Our union understands how we feel. If we are unable to get a release, they say that there is a plan B and we have to trust our elected officials.
Many good points were brought up ie. the people who bitch about the contract the most are the ones not at the meeting and the ones that swap their vacation for the company. Overall an informative meeting with a positive outcome.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

That's not true.... for the most part we agree on political issues also... We gave Rez. a run for his money on the gun issue....

Your just to drunk on ALPA koolaid....:beer:

No you just talked so much you felt you won the debate... I never changed my mind on the gun issue. In addtion you never brought any progessive discussion to the debate.. just canned responses from the pro gun camp....

I don't think PCL128 is drunk on koolaid... he just knows that ALPA is the only barrier we got from market forces. Reject representation and you're at the mercy of the economy.

That is not to say that ALPA is all things wonderful. ALPA has problems, but guys like PCL128 are smart enough to work each issue. Unlike you who are one issue orientated. You reject all things ALPA cause your pet issue isn't being addressed to your satisfaction. My kids have better social skills than you....

But you have the luxury of rejecting ALPA cause you know ALPA will still provide protection from total market forces, not just DAL brand forces. Maybe it is a good thing you can't quit ALPA and not pay dues.. cause I think you would then you'd be fighting ALPA all while trying to be an independent contractor....at ASA