SWAPA is a joke

[redflyer65]

I think Gary will at least pull the 717 payrates (=737) as soon as it's voted down. Those rates will then be negotiated later.

 

[Fubijaakr]

I think Gary will at least pull the 717 payrates (=737) as soon as it's voted down. Those rates will then be negotiated later.

Scare tactics don't work, especially here, Ace.

 

[redflyer65]

Scare tactics don't work, especially here, Ace.

Not a scare tactic Ace. Just basically what Gary agreed with your MC. I didn't craft this deal..so vote however works best for you.

 

[Lear70]

well if we dont what are our options? Recall ALPO perhaps? lets hope we dont have to cross that bridge...

It wouldn't pass (changing representative agents is expressly forbidden by the Process Agreement, it would get legally blocked until this was done), and there's not enough time anyway. By the time you could organize it, file the cards with the NMB, and have a vote, you'd be looking at 90 days. We'll be finishing arbitration by then.

Gotta stay the course. If the full language of the LOA for our CBA and the 4-party agreement meets the AIP, it'll probably go to pilot vote. If it doesn't, I expect the MEC to kill it. It's bad enough already, but if the language doesn't support the "protections", it shouldn't be put out as it didn't meet the AIP.

 

[GuppyWN]

Not a scare tactic Ace. Just basically what Gary agreed with your MC. I didn't craft this deal..so vote however works best for you.

To further this thought. I just got off the phone with one of my reps. He said 717 rates, probation, longevity and other things I won't discuss are ALL on the table if this deal doesn't go through.

I suggest BOTH sides call your reps if you want more details.

Gup

 

[Lear70]

All but longevity and probation is correct. In that, your reps and our reps disagree.

From the "FWIW" files...

 

[Ty Webb]

Gup . . . Longevity isn't "on the table", unless there was a massive re-write of Federal Labor Law that we've all missed.

 

[frqntflyr]

It wouldn't pass (changing representative agents is expressly forbidden by the Process Agreement, it would get legally blocked until this was done), and there's not enough time anyway. By the time you could organize it, file the cards with the NMB, and have a vote, you'd be looking at 90 days. We'll be finishing arbitration by then.

Gotta stay the course. If the full language of the LOA for our CBA and the 4-party agreement meets the AIP, it'll probably go to pilot vote. If it doesn't, I expect the MEC to kill it. It's bad enough already, but if the language doesn't support the "protections", it shouldn't be put out as it didn't meet the AIP.

Are you sure its SWAPA that is messing with the AIP? Good luck Fing w GK...hope your MEC shoots this down.

 

[Lear70]

Are you sure its SWAPA that is messing with the AIP? Good luck Fing w GK...hope your MEC shoots this down.

Nobody said anything about "messing with the AIP". Nobody said anything about "Fing" with GK, either.

What I *DID* say was that OUR Merger Committee brought the AIP to us in bulletpoints when your SL9 came out. It listed all the protections that the AIP is supposed to contain for us, according to their understanding of it.

They spent last week and all this week finishing our LOA and the 4-party agreement which is supposed to fully detail those protections. We don't vote on an AIP. We vote on a FULL AGREEMENT DOCUMENT which includes an ISL and all the changes to our CBA. That's our process.

If the bulletpoints are not ALL fully satisfied by the language they are working on, then I expect it to die, as it did not match the Agreement they signed with SWAPA. It's not "Fing" with anyone. It's matching the full Agreement language that we have to live with to the AIP. No need to make it personal.

 

[JT12345]

This reminds me of the realestate bubble burst and how buyers (facing 1000s in underwater realestate) looked for inaccuracies in the floor plans and contracts to get out of the deal.... sounds good.