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.

 

[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