NMB to ASA: keep negotiating

[GeekMaster]

www.
while I was not part of either committee that "sat in the room"....yes I was here and just like now....spoke to my reps constantly about what's going on with my Union and my Contract. I'm diggin' in the memory here, but when this issue came up, there was daily discussion from reps and management alike. Management's original point of view was that they already had the authority to change the duty in since the contract didn't prohibit it and section 1G "seemed" to give them the right. I remember our MEC Chairman at the time telling several of us that including in that LOA was the "easiest way for everybody". I'd have to go back and look, but I don't think we got very much in return. Seems like it had something to do with getting extra flight pay for the early duty ins at MTY and HPN....maybe SWF...that was a long while back. Isn't that the one where we also got 1/2% raise?


FreightDog-
I never said and in no way implied that they can force us to make the operation run well. They can't. The rest you got right as far as assigning additional duties. That game has gone on for a while now. Once upon a time, they changed the way we were supposed to call our "max" about as often as we changed our Deice procedures. One minute they wanted it based on 90 bags, the next something else. Some pilots retaliated by simply calling it as a "payload" number......didn't work out too good.

BUT EVERYONE'S MISSING THE POINT ON THIS ONE!!! The point is that because of past actions by other/previous pilot groups, EVEN IF WE FOUND A WAY TO MAKE THE OPERATION MELT DOWN, they're just a rule change or status quo court order away from returning things to normal. Check the case history on that.

 

[John Pennekamp]

www.
while I was not part of either committee that "sat in the room"....yes I was here and just like now....spoke to my reps constantly about what's going on with my Union and my Contract. I'm diggin' in the memory here, but when this issue came up, there was daily discussion from reps and management alike. Management's original point of view was that they already had the authority to change the duty in since the contract didn't prohibit it and section 1G "seemed" to give them the right. I remember our MEC Chairman at the time telling several of us that including in that LOA was the "easiest way for everybody". I'd have to go back and look, but I don't think we got very much in return. Seems like it had something to do with getting extra flight pay for the early duty ins at MTY and HPN....maybe SWF...that was a long while back. Isn't that the one where we also got 1/2% raise?

I also recall it happening that way. It was the 0.05% raise in exchange for the earlier duty in times (1hr ATL/45 min elsewhere). This was in LOA 29 that set the -700 rates. I recall JR at the road show saying that the 0.05% raise was the best opton because "at least we got something for what they were going to impose anyhow". They horse traded the earlier duty in for the -700 rates and the 0.05% raise for everyone else. I recall there was quite a bit of grumbling among the junior pilots that they had been "sold out" in exchange for the -700 rate that would mostly benefit the very senior.

 

[JoeMerchant]

The TRUE "silent majority" doesn't really care what EITHER side is saying.... they just want to go to Delta/United/UPS/SWA/fill in the blank. Over half didn't even vote in the last election, and it was the best turnout we've ever had....

We have created a "master/apprentice" system in the 121 airline world, and it has resulted in apathy....

IF we are to make any changes, then the whole system will have to be changed.... until then the status quo will continue whether anyone likes it or not....

 

[www.]

I recall JR at the road show saying that the 0.05% raise was the best opton because "at least we got something for what they were going to impose anyhow".

Interesting because that topic was never talked about during the process. In fact if you were to speak to the ALPA attorney at that time he would tell you that they could not impose it. Someone took it upon themselves to add a sales pitch. And as for the .05%, I was against it. To little but someone had to do a deal.

 

[John Pennekamp]

Interesting because that topic was never talked about during the process. In fact if you were to speak to the ALPA attorney at that time he would tell you that they could not impose it. Someone took it upon themselves to add a sales pitch. And as for the .05%, I was against it. To little but someone had to do a deal.

Interesting.

So you don't think that would fall under "management rights"? And AB agreed?

 

[www.]

www.
while I was not part of either committee that "sat in the room"....yes I was here and just like now....spoke to my reps constantly about what's going on with my Union and my Contract. I'm diggin' in the memory here, but when this issue came up, there was daily discussion from reps and management alike. Management's original point of view was that they already had the authority to change the duty in since the contract didn't prohibit it and section 1G "seemed" to give them the right. I remember our MEC Chairman at the time telling several of us that including in that LOA was the "easiest way for everybody". I'd have to go back and look, but I don't think we got very much in return. Seems like it had something to do with getting extra flight pay for the early duty ins at MTY and HPN....maybe SWF...that was a long while back. Isn't that the one where we also got 1/2% raise?

Take a look at Section 13.B.2.e and then look at 2.MM and 2.O.

Very clear and unambiguous language. Someone was selling you swamp land my friend.

 

[www.]

Interesting.

So you don't think that would fall under "management rights"? And AB agreed?

Correcto. These talks never took place during the negotiations.

You know AB and do you think he would allow the Company to run with this with the book language in place.

 

[GeekMaster]

Take a look at Section 13.B.2.e and then look at 2.MM and 2.O.

Very clear and unambiguous language. Someone was selling you swamp land my friend.

13.B.2.e simply states that the company will publish the duty in time on the schedule. 2.O. is a definition as to when duty begins.

2.MM is indeed significant to the definition of the old 45 minute duty in rule. It DID get changed and it DOESN'T change the entire point of the original post.

Once again that point is: THE COMPANY CAN, DOES, AND WILL CONTINUE to adjust pilot duties/responsibilities within the terms of the contract to run its operation as they see fit. If we ever found a way to make the operation melt down, they'd change a rule to fix it OR get a court order for status quo.

Another case and point. In the old days, airplanes seemed to ALWAYS break at the outstations. Serious flight delays while waiting on contract maintenance to come out caused the company huge chaos. Over time, our SP450 section has changed to render that method largely ineffective. Now, as we all know, most items that can be deferred can be done so over the phone with MTC initials in the discrepency log and on the way back to xxx you go.

My original post on this subject still stands on its own merit with NOTHING to discredit it. "Flying the contract" no longer has the ability to melt down the operation. I wish it did, but it doesn't. The operation is fully capable of melting its ownself down regularly with no help from us.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Correcto. These talks never took place during the negotiations.

So sometimes there is false information about what really took place during negotiations..... interesting.... maybe you should consider that when you repeat lies about what happened in '98.....

Only those who are in the room know what truly happened... you of all people should understand that....

 

[www.]

So sometimes there is false information about what really took place during negotiations..... interesting.... maybe you should consider that when you repeat lies about what happened in '98.....

Only those who are in the room know what truly happened... you of all people should understand that....

hahahaha