AlbieF15
F15 Ret/FDX/InterviewPrep
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 1,764
Pirep from Monday's meeting at hub...
Okay...first disclaimer. I rolled in late--with a bucketful of p1ss and vinegar. TonyC, Sleepy, and later BC were up along with Derek and a player I didn't recognize.
Facts first:
Lots of anger about SVT. Lots of concern about pay. Not one ringing endorsement of the LOA except from the dude in the second row who I remember as being a committee member or MEC rep earlier.
BC claims that "scope" and RLA provisions are the big reason to sign. Making flights that start and end overseas under RLA provisions is a huge step. His claim (IMHO a reach..) is that the agreement you sign in the FDA saying you agree to abide by RLA provisions will help solidify future scope battles.
SVT--BC and the crowd say "likely won't happen.." Those were put in to force flex/LCA guys that are 757 initial cadre to go to Paris if required to help spin up operations.
Money--union wanted more but says company will just say no. BC's take is you will eat into some of your budget if you go abroad--it won't be a housing allowance windfall. He claims its still enough to live comfortably...and mentioned a few HK neighborhoods he thought qualified. I'll reserve judgement--haven't been since 1976 so I'll defer to our MD-11 and Subic brethren.
BC says if you don't like it--don't bid it. But don't take $2700 from a guy who wants to go anyway.
Impressions now:
BC needs charm school. (Sometimes I do too...) Granted--he was in from a long international trip. For a guy who says he "doesn't care how we vote" he seems to take any concern on the LOA as a personal scathing attack. My own impression is BC was quite smitten with getting the Hong Kong base instead of the much less desirable mainland base. Rather than complaining about the duty pay for the ground transportation, he was thrilled he "got" the company to agree to not base pilots on the mainland and then pay them for a some of the ground trip. BC has "personalized" this campaign a bit and I think he is shocked by the backlash--and feels insulted. (Again--I'm not commenting except to say this is MY impression based on what I heard tonight). I think he thought he could sell this on the "excitement" of living abroad and the modest allowances. Now that the backlash is exploding in front of him, he's trying to find any reason to say "its still a good deal". RLA and scope are the straws he's grasping.
Some guys are listening to the scope argument. Some aren't. The more junior you are--the more you hate the SVT.
BC kept mentioning his long tenure here. During that time--I'll bet he was never "junior manned" or "inversed" 90 days away from home. I think part of the reason so many guys are stunned by the backlash is they haven't been in a place where you could be junior manned in a long, long time and have forgetten what is feels like to lose that control.
Suggestions and Recommendations:
I suspect the vote might be closer than the 82% no 18 % yes we see here on APC, but that as it is it will fail. If the union wants this to pass, they need to work with the company and tweak the SVT block. If they simply replaced "up to 3 bid periods" with "1 bid period" or "30 days", I think this thing would sail--money shortfalls aside. Draw a line through the coach tickets for families--and use the savings to send me home at the end of 30 days.
Speakers indicated going back to company is "risky". I would argue that if they want this to pass--so is going forward as is.
My take: Find a way to send me abroad for no more than 30 days at a time--and I'll support this effort. For now, my vote is still "NO". The potential improvements in the strength of our scope clause do not warrant me being separated from my family for 90 days...at any price.
Finally--if you are a union leader, and you are finding it harder and harder to deal with those you serve--perhaps its time to go back to the line and do that job you orginally loved so much. Union work is both voluntary and a service job. I grow weary of the "if you guys would do something instead of just throwing spears" whenever someone passes on legitimate complaints. Its hard to step up if those seats and committees are already full, so if the job is stressing you that much--move over. I'm sure there are some talented, service minded folks who will be glad to help as we move forward.
Okay...first disclaimer. I rolled in late--with a bucketful of p1ss and vinegar. TonyC, Sleepy, and later BC were up along with Derek and a player I didn't recognize.
Facts first:
Lots of anger about SVT. Lots of concern about pay. Not one ringing endorsement of the LOA except from the dude in the second row who I remember as being a committee member or MEC rep earlier.
BC claims that "scope" and RLA provisions are the big reason to sign. Making flights that start and end overseas under RLA provisions is a huge step. His claim (IMHO a reach..) is that the agreement you sign in the FDA saying you agree to abide by RLA provisions will help solidify future scope battles.
SVT--BC and the crowd say "likely won't happen.." Those were put in to force flex/LCA guys that are 757 initial cadre to go to Paris if required to help spin up operations.
Money--union wanted more but says company will just say no. BC's take is you will eat into some of your budget if you go abroad--it won't be a housing allowance windfall. He claims its still enough to live comfortably...and mentioned a few HK neighborhoods he thought qualified. I'll reserve judgement--haven't been since 1976 so I'll defer to our MD-11 and Subic brethren.
BC says if you don't like it--don't bid it. But don't take $2700 from a guy who wants to go anyway.
Impressions now:
BC needs charm school. (Sometimes I do too...) Granted--he was in from a long international trip. For a guy who says he "doesn't care how we vote" he seems to take any concern on the LOA as a personal scathing attack. My own impression is BC was quite smitten with getting the Hong Kong base instead of the much less desirable mainland base. Rather than complaining about the duty pay for the ground transportation, he was thrilled he "got" the company to agree to not base pilots on the mainland and then pay them for a some of the ground trip. BC has "personalized" this campaign a bit and I think he is shocked by the backlash--and feels insulted. (Again--I'm not commenting except to say this is MY impression based on what I heard tonight). I think he thought he could sell this on the "excitement" of living abroad and the modest allowances. Now that the backlash is exploding in front of him, he's trying to find any reason to say "its still a good deal". RLA and scope are the straws he's grasping.
Some guys are listening to the scope argument. Some aren't. The more junior you are--the more you hate the SVT.
BC kept mentioning his long tenure here. During that time--I'll bet he was never "junior manned" or "inversed" 90 days away from home. I think part of the reason so many guys are stunned by the backlash is they haven't been in a place where you could be junior manned in a long, long time and have forgetten what is feels like to lose that control.
Suggestions and Recommendations:
I suspect the vote might be closer than the 82% no 18 % yes we see here on APC, but that as it is it will fail. If the union wants this to pass, they need to work with the company and tweak the SVT block. If they simply replaced "up to 3 bid periods" with "1 bid period" or "30 days", I think this thing would sail--money shortfalls aside. Draw a line through the coach tickets for families--and use the savings to send me home at the end of 30 days.
Speakers indicated going back to company is "risky". I would argue that if they want this to pass--so is going forward as is.
My take: Find a way to send me abroad for no more than 30 days at a time--and I'll support this effort. For now, my vote is still "NO". The potential improvements in the strength of our scope clause do not warrant me being separated from my family for 90 days...at any price.
Finally--if you are a union leader, and you are finding it harder and harder to deal with those you serve--perhaps its time to go back to the line and do that job you orginally loved so much. Union work is both voluntary and a service job. I grow weary of the "if you guys would do something instead of just throwing spears" whenever someone passes on legitimate complaints. Its hard to step up if those seats and committees are already full, so if the job is stressing you that much--move over. I'm sure there are some talented, service minded folks who will be glad to help as we move forward.
Many "where"?? WTF are you talking about?
