2014 Pilot Discussion
- Thread starter Falcon
- Start date
- Status
You have unconditionally listened to you leaders about USAPA since 2008, time to seek alternative informational resources on your own west pilots.
http://leonidas.cactuspilots.us/Rico/Rico%20District/65-18%5B1%5D.pdf
http://leonidas.cactuspilots.us/Rico/Rico%20District/65-18%5B1%5D.pdf
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
Claxon said:
I enjoyed reading about their A330 LOA that McIlvenna was spearheading for them just one month before ALPA was ejected. Do you have a link that LOA?
Oh wait, never mind, all agreements prior to Dec 9th are a nullity.... That means the Nic is every bit as effective as the A330 LOA that McIlvenna negotiated (or did not negotiate). Err.. I meant to say that the A330 LOA is every bit as effective as the Nic.
Rough draft;;;; Before USAPA, during the honeymoon with alpa.Phoenix said:
""Subject: U-Turn and the China LOA
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 07:38:58 -0500
[U-Turn has heard a lot of MEC misrepresentations and exposed a number of
deliberate cover-ups. But this one has GOT to make our collective eyes roll and ask:
what is really going on over on 44th Street?]
We all want to believe that our MEC officers and Reps are working together…that
the MEC Chairman is keeping the Reps informed as to what he is doing…that the
MEC Chairman is negotiating and signing agreements that will hopefully give us
improvements in our contract and our working conditions…and that our MEC is
acting in our best interests.
Last week, U-Turn discovered something quite by accident regarding recent MEC
negotiations…something that has nothing to do with current JNC negotiations and
something that our union Reps and MEC officers have kept hidden from us.
Last week, the company sent the MEC a ready-to-be-signed LOA regarding A340
and B-767-300 long-distance aircraft. The significance of this LOA is such that it will
require signatures of our Association President John Prater and company CEO
Doug Parker. The proposed LOA would modify the existing Contracts and/or
Transition Agreement to pave the way for the company’s bid for China routes,
scheduled to begin March 1, 2008 (if we get the routes). The LOA involves pay rates,
working conditions and working locations.
It appears that this LOA has been negotiated to the point of producing an LOA
document prepared for and suitable for signing. The company needed this LOA now
in order to arrange for aircraft leases/purchases and to train crews. And the Ninth
Floor doesn’t need a contract grievance or a TA dispute interfering with possible
aircraft and route acquisitions.
Our current two-contract system required that both MECs sign off on this LOA. It
is our understanding the LOA is mostly boiler-plate labor/management language.
But there are a couple of issues that should concern all of us.
The first of which is pay. The LOA included top CA pay rates of around $172/hour
and $148/hour for the A-340 and B-767-300 respectively. So roughly a $12 and $4
increase over current A-330 and B-767-200 rates. And that’s for aircraft that won’t
enter China service until March 2008, if we are awarded China routes.
Are we reading too much into this when we suspect that the company has set the top
rate for an A-340 at $172/hour for not only next March, but for their upcoming
comprehensive “offer” to be presented on May 8-9 as well?
We’ll know the answer in just ten days (at least our union leadership will know in
ten days).
The pay rates should particularly concern us out west, since according to the LOA,
the aircraft will be flown on the East certificate. Who flies them will actually be
determined by the Transition Agreement as modified by this proposed LOA. Based
on the 757 LOU and the E190 Arbitration, we have to assume that means the East
gets first shot at them, ALL of them. At least until we are fully “merged.” After we
are “merged,” then bidding would be by Section 24 (Filling of Vacancies).
The next concern was some wording which allowed West pilots to operate the
aircraft out of East domiciles. BUT this may be bad news:
We understand that the proposal allows A340 and/or B767-300 aircraft to be
operated by West pilots during the current period of Separate Operations. But in
order to do so, our pilots may be assigned (we don’t know if that means IVed) to
East domiciles. Of course, if the East objects, that could generate another E190-type
arbitration. Anyone who thinks that the East is going to let us back into wide-body
type ratings really doesn’t have a grasp on their commitment to seniority rules.
If assigned “back east,” our pilots will be subject to the scheduling rules of the East
Agreement and will use seniority as determined by the integrated pilot seniority list
arrived at in agreement with Section IV of the Transition Agreement, even if we are
still operating under two separate contracts.
Sure, those sent back east get a “wide-body” slot and a pay raise, but what would be
the conditions? Would our pilots be TDY? Permanently displaced? Whatever the
case, our crews most likely would be near bottom reserve on those aircraft, working
under the East contract. And if anyone thinks our reserve system leaves something
to be desired, try working under the “East’s.”
"The proposed LOA would modify the existing Contracts and/or
Transition Agreement.'
Company and american airline pilots could be working on a agreement with out the knowledge of the USAirways pilots. "History repeating itself" cliche' comes to mind.
Transition Agreement.'
Company and american airline pilots could be working on a agreement with out the knowledge of the USAirways pilots. "History repeating itself" cliche' comes to mind.
snapthis
Veteran
- Dec 23, 2009
- 4,236
- 6,907
My thoughts? I thank the training committee for a comical update.Claxon said:
Sadly, as the greying of our hair… or lack thereof…will attest, many of us began our careers before cell phones, bottled water, and suitcases had wheels on them. Just as this technology has become an integral part of our lives, so too will the iPad.
One of the initial obstacles prior to introduction of the iPad dealt with our concern for its integrated tracking capabilities. Thankfully USAPA was able to negotiate protective contractual language for this, as well as for the loss or damage of the device.
So....East pilots were around before the Wright Brothers and the iPad must be locked in the hotel safe so it can't sneak up on you during happy hour?
luvthe9 said:
luvthe9: "This just shows what a bunch of nut jobs work at AWA, they could never get hired anywhere else." That's perhaps a bit on the steep side, but there are many "interesting" aspects to that individual's complaints:
1) It apparently took just two years for him to gain a bachelor's degree. "enrolled in the fall of 1988...graduated in December 1990". Not impossible, but interesting of it's self. From the FBI's posted requirements: "You must possess a four-year degree from a college or university accredited by one of the regional or national institutional associations recognized by the United States Secretary of Education."
2) The applicant was evidently oblivious to the (presumably then as well as now) posted requirement: "You must have at least three years of professional work experience." Anyone earnestly seeking admission to the agency would reasonably have done their homework and know this, which begs the question of just what three years of suitable, professional experience this person could have imagined they had.
3) "The interview went great and I achieved a perfect score." Seriously? Has anyone else ever heard they "achieved a perfect score" after any interview anywhere?...In this case, even without the required three years experience to boot? "I was excepted for the class", versus accepted, by it's self calls into question the chances of "a perfect score" during written testing alone, as does the later "Myself and another girl."
4) "After the polygraph was over, he told me I had failed. I almost passed out in disbelief....." I'll assume that last was just a poorly chosen figure of speech from an excited drama queen, since almost passing out from such an event's hardly any trait one would reasonably wish to see in armed agents. For that matter; the easy willingness to forever besmirch the character of an agency that was previously a person's "dream" to be part of, and doing so on the world wide internet, well...simply fails to favorably impress by way of personal character. "I had always looked up to that agency as the pinnacle of professionalism."...But Waah!....They rejected me, so they must no longer be?
5) Perhaps most concerning is the delusional naivete demonstrated by fantasies that writing letters to the top dog and offering to "pay all expenses" for yet another interview/polygraph experience could even be taken at all seriously, much less favorably acted on.
6) "...all I wanted to do was to have a chance to serve my country and make my family proud." Really? Kindly spare us all. Were there no other organizations available in which to do that? Sigh...I must suppose that instead "serving" in the "army of leonidas" as a mighty "spartan" will have to suffice.
I can only hope the family are all delightedly swimming around in a whole pool full of pride...Really? Do you have to be a douche bag about everything? I get that you don't like USAPA and the actions of east pilots over the Nic. Really, I do. But we have a lot of committee members that try to stay non-political and do a lot of work for us. Can't you drop it for a day?snapthis said:
traderjake
Veteran
- Aug 30, 2002
- 5,669
- 9,308
Rumor is that all 767s will be gone by April.
traderjake
Veteran
- Aug 30, 2002
- 5,669
- 9,308
flyer63 said:
Which update, f cking thief?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
