226 replies to this topic

[usfliboi]

Onestep2flt, on 07 February 2012 - 05:13 PM, said:

I know you were not referring to me specifically. However, you must reread my post.  I stated very clearly that I did not believe anything that I pointed out was meant to deceive.  Moreover, after seven years, a joint negotiating committee made up of how many people and a supposed " staff" attorney you would think that somebody would proof read it before it gets sent out!  There is no room for error in this legally binding document.  One word can spoil the whole agreement as it can affect every section after.  Hey, I am not the greatest speller as evident in some of my posts. But seriously, in this case it matters.  Is it not amazing why they were not corrected by your company at least?  Oh, that might be because a poorly written agreement is easier to poke holes in and use creative interpretation .

What you are calling conspriracy here, most call common sense!

I agree the "I'S" should be dotted and "T's" crossed..

[N965VJ]

I'm starting to wonder if AFA is using the same spellcheck as Tempe; there were a bunch of typos in AFA's transcript of testimony before a House Subcommittee last summer.  

[galley princess]

So I did read the reserve section, and I have mixed feelings about it.

I was surprised to find that I like the idea of RAPs.  I really thought it was a lousy idea at first, but given the Career Reserve reality at US, clearly something has to be done about the hours involved.  I also think that the knowledge that the call will end after twelve hours with a relief of twelve hours will ameliorate the often psychological heaviness of being on a leash.

I also like that they would use technology a bit more, as reserves will enter preferred bids each day via the PBS. (At least that's how I interpreted it, I could be wrong)

I think it's crap that the days off stay at eleven, they should have gone to the twelve a la AWA.

As written, it's LTO in "Bucket Drag", I am not confident that if you're available for four days, and there are 4, 3, 2 and 1 day trips to cover that you'll hold the 2 day you want, and instead be assigned the 4 day.

Fundamentally, I had pretty low expectations of what could be done about reserve.  Once LTO was allowed at US, it would be all but impossible to get rid of, however this "aggressive" nonsense is truly objectionable and again reflects how the union holds seniority valuable to lineholders and not reserves.  At the very least the senior reserves should be given the option of flying to time out.

So I believe that Sparrow asked if the reserve system would be better?  My answer, yes, but not by much.

[700UW]

usfliboi, on 07 February 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

Wow! Guys conspiracy therories are just rampant..Amazing!  Just know the contract and voice any concerns concerning mis types etc to the union!

John John is correct, there are problems with the post merger CBA Fleet and the Company have signed a few years back and it actually caused an issue with them not getting a 2% raise.

It wasnt a new CBA John, it is the current one.

[galley princess]

In my first post, I neglected to even mention the most glaring concession.

They got the separation from the pilots.  A HUGE mother of a concession.  FOR NOTHING.  AGAIN.

Do I particularly care about flying with the pilots?  No.  Does that mean that I do not recognize it as a card in our deck?  No.  Is the card now stomped on and in the trash?

Yes.

I guess I'll be the first one to say this.

I'm voting no.

This TA is for five years.  That translates to seven basically.  Three raises in seven years?  Try that on management and watch their response.  Huge amounts of changes could be coming, or nothing could change at all, but US getting away with paying lower than industry standard and walking away with significant work rules for free?  Not with my vote.

Regarding the "vote my pocketbook" post, I recognize the value of that statement.  However, as I see it, after I pay for losing my scheduling system, significantly change how I fly, recognizing that everyone can now count themselves as an "extra" rather than one of at least two or three on a trip and kiss goodbye any option of flying lead and making the extra $6.50/ hr because it is now a fenced off position, my pocketbook is looking better with the status quo.

You're talking about $5/hr for CONCESSIONS.  In a contract that had no business HAVING CONCESSIONS.  Been there, done that, 2001, 2002?

I agree with whoever posted that this TA heavily favors the senior, (with the exception of the lead f/a program, since they're going to lose big on that) shafts the junior and for those of "middle seniority", we will probably lose the most.  PBS has too many variables to really know how it will play out, but it is clear that  such targeted bidding, pure seniority looks to be brutal.  

This TA is shoddy work, and if we were paying professional negotiators, they'd never dare bring this to the membership.

[FlyUs]

galley princess, on 07 February 2012 - 08:01 PM, said:

In my first post, I neglected to even mention the most glaring concession.

They got the separation from the pilots.  A HUGE mother of a concession.  FOR NOTHING.  AGAIN.

Do I particularly care about flying with the pilots?  No.  Does that mean that I do not recognize it as a card in our deck?  No.  Is the card now stomped on and in the trash?

Yes.

I guess I'll be the first one to say this.

I'm voting no.

This TA is for five years.  That translates to seven basically.  Three raises in seven years?  Try that on management and watch their response.  Huge amounts of changes could be coming, or nothing could change at all, but US getting away with paying lower than industry standard and walking away with significant work rules for free?  Not with my vote.

Regarding the "vote my pocketbook" post, I recognize the value of that statement.  However, as I see it, after I pay for losing my scheduling system, significantly change how I fly, recognizing that everyone can now count themselves as an "extra" rather than one of at least two or three on a trip and kiss goodbye any option of flying lead and making the extra $6.50/ hr because it is now a fenced off position, my pocketbook is looking better with the status quo.

You're talking about $5/hr for CONCESSIONS.  In a contract that had no business HAVING CONCESSIONS.  Been there, done that, 2001, 2002?

I agree with whoever posted that this TA heavily favors the senior, (with the exception of the lead f/a program, since they're going to lose big on that) shafts the junior and for those of "middle seniority", we will probably lose the most.  PBS has too many variables to really know how it will play out, but it is clear that  such targeted bidding, pure seniority looks to be brutal.  

This TA is shoddy work, and if we were paying professional negotiators, they'd never dare bring this to the membership.

Thank you.  Well said

[Glucose Intolerant]

galley princess, on 07 February 2012 - 08:01 PM, said:

In my first post, I neglected to even mention the most glaring concession.

They got the separation from the pilots.  A HUGE mother of a concession.  FOR NOTHING.  AGAIN.

Do I particularly care about flying with the pilots?  No.  Does that mean that I do not recognize it as a card in our deck?  No.  Is the card now stomped on and in the trash?

Yes.

I guess I'll be the first one to say this.

I'm voting no.

This TA is for five years.  That translates to seven basically.  Three raises in seven years?  Try that on management and watch their response.  Huge amounts of changes could be coming, or nothing could change at all, but US getting away with paying lower than industry standard and walking away with significant work rules for free?  Not with my vote.

Regarding the "vote my pocketbook" post, I recognize the value of that statement.  However, as I see it, after I pay for losing my scheduling system, significantly change how I fly, recognizing that everyone can now count themselves as an "extra" rather than one of at least two or three on a trip and kiss goodbye any option of flying lead and making the extra $6.50/ hr because it is now a fenced off position, my pocketbook is looking better with the status quo.

You're talking about $5/hr for CONCESSIONS.  In a contract that had no business HAVING CONCESSIONS.  Been there, done that, 2001, 2002?

I agree with whoever posted that this TA heavily favors the senior, (with the exception of the lead f/a program, since they're going to lose big on that) shafts the junior and for those of "middle seniority", we will probably lose the most.  PBS has too many variables to really know how it will play out, but it is clear that  such targeted bidding, pure seniority looks to be brutal.  

This TA is shoddy work, and if we were paying professional negotiators, they'd never dare bring this to the membership.

I am glad atleast one person gets it - hopefully the pom pom squad gets it before its too late.

From what I have read so far - thumbs down

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

The interesting part of your agreement seems to be "WEALTH DISTRIBUTION"! How funny! Cost Neutral to "TEMPE" IE raise in HEALTH BENNIES but equaled by a pay increase, PBS and less vaca and sick, offset by the ability to furlough and scheduling for the company, my bet YOU VOTE YES, 400 F/A's furloughed and "TEMPE" reduces it's cost, what an insult!