IBT 1108 Strike vote 100%

[TheRealDeal]

That is so naive.

We have a Republican President in Office. Therefore we have a very anti-Labor NMB.
Wake up!

 

[FAcFriend]

real deal...

therein lies the rub- only the POTUS himself can resolve the problem of the MEC and MGT?

well get in line after the middle east-

 

[El Chupacabra]

Strike will not be necessary. Management will not make it past the Holidays without a Motivated Pilot Force.

... And Its beginning to look a lot like Christmas.

Ho Ho Ho

 

[dsptchrnja]

You and the other NJA Management apologist can talk about the company bargaining in good faith all you want. The pilots have recently begun an effort to "work in good faith" as a response to the company's lack of bargaining for 4 years. Now you may see it as a work slow down but technically it's just strictly following the rules. Let's see how you, Santulli and Boisture like it as we legally follow the rules to the letter of the law. I hope you use your same logic to come to our defense when management starts screaming that we are "working in bad faith" when the tempo slows to a crawl. Illegal? Heck no, we are just going to take a page out of the company's playbook they have been using for 4 years and see how they like a taste of their own bitter strategy. You're not gonna be one of those types that can dish it out but can't take it, are you?

What you call "strictly following the rules" I would call an ethical problem if it means you or other crewmembers are accepting pay for serving the company's needs while engaged in looking for reasons to not accept flights. By looking for reasons I mean looking for loopholes or embelishng an a/c issue in order to write it up when otherwise you wouldn't have given it a second thought. I won't debate the legalities with you, I don't believe crewmembers have done anything illegal that I am aware. I don't think Santulli, or anyone else, has a problem with you staying legal - question is, why weren't you before? Your motives are the key issue with ethical issues. If your motives are merely to hurt the company rather than the sole pursuit of safety or legality, then you've got a problem. Perhaps there are crews calling in sick now when they are not. Perhaps they are calling in tired when they are not too tired to fly. I would consider this unethical and a good way to get fired, but I wouldn't call it a slowdown. I wouldn't call it "following the rules" for that matter.

BTW, it's not working. Too many good people (pilots) at NetJets that won't stoop to pathetic games while the company is actively engaged in the bargaining process. It's just a bitter few. I know this with certainty because I see most all our crews working their butts off everyday with pride and enthusiasm.

Thanks to all the great pilots at NJA - keep up the good work.

 

[dsptchrnja]

Once again your spinning this from the angle that we were issued abeyance because we (union) were negotiating in bad faith.

That is wrong. Tell us why you think we're in abeyance?

Neither you or I be dogmatic when it comes to to saying WHY you are in abeyance. This is because the NMB has not commented on the reason why. But we can speculate. What they did say is that they need the company and union to come to agreement on the financials. This would lead me to speculate that the they agreed with the company that the union needs to bargain with the knowledge of the profitibility of the company before they (NMB) can ascertain whether the proposals made by the company are in proportion to their financial condition.

Thus far, the union has appeared to have rejected the proposals based on the assumption that the company is more profitiable than it has lead on. Or, more specifically, rejected on the premise it can afford to double pilot salaries. Once the financial statements are disclosed - they will find out.

BTW, I never implied the union has bargained in bad faith - but I would say they aren't very smart to attempt to bargain millions of dollars worth of salaries not knowing with certainty the profitibility of the company. Drooling over WB's personal wealth has gotten the bargaining process nowhere.

 

[Some Dude]

Another uniformed post by dispatcher. I wish I could go to a dispatch school for two weeks get a license and be an expert. I earned all my ratings. The company doesn't own my ATP. I will protect my certificate by grounding any airplane that has to be grounded. I will follow all company memos and rules of the FOM. I will also fly the contract to the letter. Nothing illegal or unethical about that.

 

[Majik]

What you call "strictly following the rules" I would call an ethical problem if it means you or other crewmembers are accepting pay for serving the company's needs while engaged in looking for reasons to not accept flights.

I am paid to evaluate the airworthiness of the plane, evaluate the weather, and the ability of the crew to safely conduct any flight assigned to me. That is exactly what I am doing.

By looking for reasons I mean looking for loopholes or embelishng an a/c issue in order to write it up when otherwise you wouldn't have given it a second thought. I won't debate the legalities with you, I don't believe crewmembers have done anything illegal that I am aware. I don't think Santulli, or anyone else, has a problem with you staying legal - question is, why weren't you before?

In the past I was guilty of carrying a minor issue (meaning I felt it was safe to continue the flight, even if, by the FARs, I should write it up as soon as I discovered it). Why? Because I thought it would benefit the company, a company that Santulli promised he would make the best job in the aviation industry. 4 years later, I realized he was not a man of his word. I realized he would continue to drag contract negotiations out as a cost savings measure to fund expansion. I watched the company more than triple in size and watched the number of times the company violated the current contract by over 1000%. I decided that Santulli was not a man of his word and that I needed to adopt his negotiating strategy if I stood a chance at making this the job I was led to believe it would be. In other words, fight fire with fire.

Your motives are the key issue with ethical issues. If your motives are merely to hurt the company rather than the sole pursuit of safety or legality, then you've got a problem. Perhaps there are crews calling in sick now when they are not. Perhaps they are calling in tired when they are not too tired to fly. I would consider this unethical and a good way to get fired, but I wouldn't call it a slowdown. I wouldn't call it "following the rules" for that matter.

Our motives are to legally use any and all legal leverage to obtain the contract that Santulli promised. He promised great pay, a great home basing system, and scope that included bringing the Gulfstreams to NJA. Our motives are to make him a man of his word and, just like him, to use any legal loophole we can to accomplish our objectives. I think his strategy was legal but unethical. If think we can still achieve our goals without rising to his level but it will require leverage. Legal leverage.

BTW, it's not working. Too many good people (pilots) at NetJets that won't stoop to pathetic games while the company is actively engaged in the bargaining process. It's just a bitter few. I know this with certainty because I see most all our crews working their butts off everyday with pride and enthusiasm. Thanks to all the great pilots at NJA - keep up the good work.

I think it's too early to judge. We have not yet begun to fight. Four years seems to be the magic number as far as pilots starting to finally realize what it's going to take to motivate Santulli to keep his word. Let's see what happens when more and more pilots adopt an active negotiating strategy and the busy season gets here. You, being in CMH, could help us by being an observer and letting us know when the pressure starts to be felt in the Crystal Palace. Until then, I'll take your word for it that the company hasn't even felt the effect of a few pilots following the rules. That means we need to crank it up a notch

 

[dsptchrnja]

Most of your post I find fairly reasonable.

Our motives are to legally use any and all legal leverage to obtain the contract that Santulli promised. He promised great pay, a great home basing system, and scope that included bringing the Gulfstreams to NJA.

I don't wish to make this another NJI vs. NJA controversy but this is the first I've heard of this "promise". I would like a quote please.... if you don't have one (with credible source), which I suspect you don't, don't bother to reply.

At any rate, why would he say this if it is clearly not his intent (rhetorical question)?

I think it's too early to judge. We have not yet begun to fight. Four years seems to be the magic number as far as pilots starting to finally realize what it's going to take to motivate Santulli to keep his word. Let's see what happens when more and more pilots adopt an active negotiating strategy and the busy season gets here. You, being in CMH, could help us by being an observer and letting us know when the pressure starts to be felt in the Crystal Palace. Until then, I'll take your word for it that the company hasn't even felt the effect of a few pilots following the rules. That means we need to crank it up a notch

If you need my help, you are in more desperate need than I had already figured!

As for continuing to follow the rules... it's pretty tough to argue with that Like one of our associates said before, NJA is probably safer and more compliant now than ever!

Just remember, for those clearly not following the rules you have made yourself vulnerable and hopefully this will turn into a weeding out process for those with alterior and destructive motives. It works both ways.

 

[Majik]

Most of your post I find fairly reasonable.

That because, sometimes, I'm fairly rational

I don't wish to make this another NJI vs. NJA controversy but this is the first I've heard of this "promise". I would like a quote please.... if you don't have one (with credible source), which I suspect you don't, don't bother to reply. At any rate, why would he say this if it is clearly not his intent (rhetorical question)?

Mr. Santulli made this statement to the pilots attending a meeting over at Hamilton Rd, when he announced the joint venture with Gulfstream. The source is one of our negotiators, who reminded Santulli of his promise in a letter to him about 2 months ago. I am very confident of this statement. It was reiterated to the negotiators of the current contract (1998) when the Gulfstreams were brought up during scope negotiations.

If you need my help, you are in more desperate need than I had already figured!

That was said tongue in cheek. I should have followed it with a
Although you said, from your perspective at Bridgeway, that things are continuing to run hot, straight and normal. I would be interested if and when you notice a change from "normal" operations. It's harder to judge the effect from the cockpit of only one aircraft.

Just remember, for those clearly not following the rules you have made yourself vulnerable and hopefully this will turn into a weeding out process for those with alterior and destructive motives. It works both ways.

I agree. Our credibility will be damaged if pilots allow 4 years of frustration to cause them to misjudge and step over the edge of legality. I'm not saying it won't happen; it probably will or already has, but everyone has definitely been warned to follow the rules.