NMB to ASA: keep negotiating

[ASARJMan]

Amen brother! Too many people going above-and-beyond. What part of slowing-down-the-operation do these people not understand? If your flight is on-time and no mx issues, then you can only blame yourself for the lack of movement by the company.

Agreed. That's what it will take.

 

[ASA_Aviator]

Amen brother! Too many people going above-and-beyond. What part of slowing-down-the-operation do these people not understand? If your flight is on-time and no mx issues, then you can only blame yourself for the lack of movement by the company.

What part of "illegal job action" do you not understand?

 

[FmrFreightDog]

What part of "illegal job action" do you not understand?

And what part of "fly the book" do you not understand? How many airplanes have you taken in the last month that didn't have one single thing broken on them?? How many flights of yours would have left the gate on time without your repeated calls to ops for servicing?

 

[www.]

hahahahahahahahaha

 

[VeeOne]

Trying to slow things down is a joke- they only schedule more block to compensate. How much premium have you raked in lately- I've snagged a lot and am not even trying. As for the maintenance thing- they just deffer the item in question anyway. Or they end up finding a different airplane for you at another gate which ticks the people off upstairs only to dump it on the flight attendant, which you have to hear about and act like you give a s&*t about anyway. I'd rather get on with my life, do my job, go home on time, and drink beer. I'm happy enough with the latest proposal to keep things on a roll.

 

[GeekMaster]

In theory, it would sound like a great idea to "fly the contract". It has LONG been known by pilots, management, the courts AND the FAA that we the pilots "wiggle" around many of the rules in their verbatum form in order to keep the operation out of chaos. Flying the contract served us well in contract 98 and has proved effective for other pilot groups as well. The problem is, that it won't work anymore. Here's why:

1. Courts have shown overwhelmingly they will no longer tolerate it. Familiar with the term "status quo"? It doesn't just apply to the AA sick out. For those who don't remember, when Comair tried it before their strike, they also took a bit of legal heat. Many pilots were even fired due to the nature of their maintenance write ups. Granted, the pilots whose write ups were legitimate problems later got their job back. Some didn't; especially when their write ups were suspect, such as "engine doesn't sound right". IF WE THE ASA PILOTS EVER "FLEW THE CONTRACT" ON A SCALE TO ACTUALLY BE EFFECTIVE, THE COURTS WOULD STEP IN. So here's my question to you. You "might" get your job back when it's all over and you might even get back pay. But do you really want to risk it and be out of work and have that on your record?

2. Open your contract. Look at section 1G. Read it and comprehend its meaning. For those without a contract handy, I'll summrize. "Unless something is expressly prohibited by another portion of the contract, management can require you to do ANYTHING they want to make the operation work well". I've been here since the beginning of this contract and have seen management invoke this section many times. Here's a little trip down memory lane. ......We "used" to duty in 45 minutes prior to the departure and be on the airplane 30 minutes prior to departure. Even though the union screamed about it, we now duty in 1 hour prior to be onboard at 45 minutes. We "used" to be required to call "onboard", "on the ground", "in range", "max" and a host of other things from time to time. If we EVER effectively started screwing up the operation due to "flying the contract", a stroke of a pen by king tutt and you will once again be required to perform a new job function as covered in section 1G of the contract.

As far as maintenance write ups go, if it's broke it's broke. Technically, you don't even have the right to choose whether to fly with it or not. The discrepency log is for you to make an observation of a possible problem. Whether it gets deferred or fixed is primarily the decision of MTC. Of course if after their action, you don't feel safe, you can refuse the airplane. This airline and our chief pilot staff has been EXCELLENT in backing up pilots with safety concerns. That said, if it's bogus, don't do it. Besides your job being on the line, remember, the discrepency log is an FAA controlled document that you're putting your name on. False statements just aren't a good idea.

 

[FmrFreightDog]

2. Open your contract. Look at section 1G. Read it and comprehend its meaning. For those without a contract handy, I'll summrize. "Unless something is expressly prohibited by another portion of the contract, management can require you to do ANYTHING they want to make the operation work well". I've been here since the beginning of this contract and have seen management invoke this section many times. Here's a little trip down memory lane. ......We "used" to duty in 45 minutes prior to the departure and be on the airplane 30 minutes prior to departure. Even though the union screamed about it, we now duty in 1 hour prior to be onboard at 45 minutes.

Not to nitpick, but that was changed contractually. It's part of LOA 29, which established the 70 seat rates. Specifically:

Section 2.MM. of the Agreement will be changed to read as follows: "'Report Time' means the time a pilot is scheduled to report for duty. Report time shall be scheduled for sixty (60) minutes prior to flight departure at domicile and between thirty (30) and forty-five (45) minutes (as designated by the Company in the Bid Package as modified by the final bid award) at layover stations, except that report time for deadheading may be scheduled for fifteen (15) minutes prior to departure."

 

[GeekMaster]

Not to nitpick back, but I was here for that too. Yes it was included in that LOA. But, don't kid yourself, the company had already decided they were going to do it no matter what. So rather than enter into a long drawn out greivance process in which ALPA suspected it would lose, they chose to include it in the LOA which was already in the works in exchange for miniscule gains.

But, don't miss the main point. They CAN AND WILL require us to participate to whatever degree necassary if their operation begins to meltdown due to our actions; as long as other sections of the contract don't expressly prohibit it.

 

[www.]

Not to nitpick back, but I was here for that too. Yes it was included in that LOA. But, don't kid yourself, the company had already decided they were going to do it no matter what. So rather than enter into a long drawn out greivance process in which ALPA suspected it would lose, they chose to include it in the LOA which was already in the works in exchange for miniscule gains.

And you were there for those talks?

 

[FmrFreightDog]

Not to nitpick back, but I was here for that too. Yes it was included in that LOA. But, don't kid yourself, the company had already decided they were going to do it no matter what. So rather than enter into a long drawn out greivance process in which ALPA suspected it would lose, they chose to include it in the LOA which was already in the works in exchange for miniscule gains.

But, don't miss the main point. They CAN AND WILL require us to participate to whatever degree necassary if their operation begins to meltdown due to our actions; as long as other sections of the contract don't expressly prohibit it.

I'm fairly sure that's not a true statement, but since I'm not 100% sure, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Aside from that, I disagree with your assertion that they can force us to make the operation run well by assigning us additional duties. Yes, they can assign us additional duties as long as it is not forbidden by the contract. However, if this pilot groups actually had any will, nothing they can do would truly salvage the operation if we were bound and determined to conduct a "fly by the book" campaign.

Then again, I'm sure that you and I can agree that such a thing will never happen. You'll say it's because the "silent majority" no longer supports the direction of the MEC, but I say it's because the bulk of the pilot group lacks the fortitude to truly effect change. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.