I know purple doesn't count but it's 6/day.
New Alaska TA
- Thread starter Cherokee_Cruiser
- Start date
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
Fair game
I shouldn’t have wrote that. I’m open to all input and yes I do give an earful
on other airlines. But other airline contacts at majors, honestly, I don’t know who has what provisions.I just like that:
1. Our MEC kept in touch with the big 5 MEC and shared ideas and kept them in the loop of what we were getting. And they kept us updated on their progress. No one MEC should be shocked at our TA.
2. ALPA’s EFA gave our NC the data and tools needed to come up with a realistic TA.
3. Unanimous vote by our union for the TA. Not one dissident.
That to me speaks volumes. I’m a yea vote. I’ll still go to the roadshow but my mind is pretty my much made up at this point. This contract meets my needs, I’m still gonna review as much of the full text as I can once that’s released Friday.
BEEF SUPREME
Well-Known Member
I at least want to see the actual language first.
It’s really a shame there’s no contract simulator where you can see how things will actually work.
Another concern I have is will management just violate the contract like they did last time? We still don’t have vacation open time. Does no one care about that? Am I alone in being upset that this was taken away, during section 6 negotiations, with no recourse? If they got away with that we will just be facing it again with the new contract.
I’m thinking this will pass even if I vote no. And the company will be approaching ALPA to negotiate for a better contract sooner than later. I don’t believe this will solve our attrition issues.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It’s really a shame there’s no contract simulator where you can see how things will actually work.
Another concern I have is will management just violate the contract like they did last time? We still don’t have vacation open time. Does no one care about that? Am I alone in being upset that this was taken away, during section 6 negotiations, with no recourse? If they got away with that we will just be facing it again with the new contract.
I’m thinking this will pass even if I vote no. And the company will be approaching ALPA to negotiate for a better contract sooner than later. I don’t believe this will solve our attrition issues.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fair game
I shouldn’t have wrote that. I’m open to all input and yes I do give an earful
I just like that:
1. Our MEC kept in touch with the big 5 MEC and shared ideas and kept them in the loop of what we were getting. And they kept us updated on their progress. No one MEC should be shocked at our TA.
2. ALPA’s EFA gave our NC the data and tools needed to come up with a realistic TA.
3. Unanimous vote by our union for the TA. Not one dissident.
That to me speaks volumes. I’m a yea vote. I’ll still go to the roadshow but my mind is pretty my much made up at this point. This contract meets my needs, I’m still gonna review as much of the full text as I can once that’s released Friday.
That actually... doesn't.
I don't think it's your first "rodeo" but justification like that sure makes it sound like it is.
This.
"We didn't think they'd do THAT" and LOA's over interpretation of what you thought was set-in-stone are normal.
See the language.
Wait, no, don't listen to me. I'm sure there will be people that show up that say that since I'm working in Flight Standards and Pilot Development and won Chairman's Club that I'm some management wonk. So scratch all that.
"It's been a day"
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
100% this. Don't vote on anything you haven't seen and understand the intent of.
It's difficult to see how some language will end up working. Pilot or management behaviors change to take advantage (or mitigate) certain things, and all of the sudden language that was supposed to do one thing when it was talked about at the table, does something else entirely. It's not always intentional (in fact, it's normally not intentional) but it does happen. Often times you end up bandaiding old language to solve issues. But every one in a while you end up rewriting a whole section and the complexity is often beyond what you can fully capture. It's damn near impossible to think of every possible contingency and things can fall through the cracks. It's not unheard of to have to say, "well, the language doesn't actually contemplate that" during a grievance hearing.
I don't know the details of the vacation open time thing, but I have to imagine, especially with how contentious things were for a while, that if Alaska management had made a status quo violation, ALPA would have been all over it.
Second tier management? Management in training? Shadow management?
Murder. MURDER!
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
I did say that I was going to the roadshow (if I’m off) and that I will review the full txt when that’s released tomorrow. I’m a yes vote so far based on the executive summary.
I’ll still do my due diligence.
Flying for airlines since 2007 and this is only my second time voting for a contract. First vote was a no (which in retrospect, was a huge mistake for the pilot group back then). Then went to a non-union carrier. Voted in ALPA. JCBA went to arbitration, we had no vote. Now for the second time since 2007, I get to vote.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
Yes.
Don’t know about that.
Yes.
This TA says vacation left after bidding will be left alone and available in open time bidding.
Me too, and I’ll take it. $100/hr newhire isn’t going to cut it. Look forward to them returning sooner than 3 yrs. Oh you want to negotiate for higher newhire pay? Well, here’s what we were thinking……
Maurus
The Great Gazoo
Good. Didn't see it in the spark notes portion that I read.
BEEF SUPREME
Well-Known Member
I have yet to see the 21-22 vacation open time issue addressed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ClearedForOption
Psychiatric Help 5¢
This, this... and this again.
The devil is in the details and the language... and the intent that's enshrined in the bargaining notes that you will not get to see, so make sure that you understand the mechanisms of all of these provisions that look great on paper and suddenly have loopholes that management is flying A380's through to the determent of the pilots on your property.
PBS, pairing construction backstops and limitations, the mechanisms of reserve coverage and swapping/dropping trips, reschedule pay, delay pay... it needs to be crowdsourced by the pilot group and don't let the words "the company would never do that/it's not in their best interest to do that" be acceptable - ask what stops them from doing that. Because if it is 'cheaper' at some point, a beancounter will exploit the provision. Wargame the bare contractual minimums and ask yourself if it's acceptable to you and the group. Look at your quality of life living under the stripped down bare minimum backstops of the agreement. Min days off, min pay, trips constructed to the lowest cost, no ability to swap drop...
All that being said, it looks like a good deal so far from the outside looking in.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
Ok I'm a no vote.
Section 26 General
J. Masculine Pronoun
Any masculine pronoun used in this Agreement shall be deemed and understood to designate any employee, whether male or female.
How dare they assume only two genders?
Section 26 General
J. Masculine Pronoun
Any masculine pronoun used in this Agreement shall be deemed and understood to designate any employee, whether male or female.
How dare they assume only two genders?
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
Full text is out. I thought it was a full re-write of the contract. No, same contract, even the same LOAs (how's that even possible?! why not codify that into the regular contract). The good part of that is all the changes are underlined sentences and bolded. So as I'm scrolling through the document it is easy for me to see the changes.
I'm still a yes vote.
I'm still a yes vote.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
It went up about 5 months ago. There was language (and value) put in the 2017 PWA that allowed the Company to increase 1st year pay when they wanted to, subject to a few restrictions.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
That was always a pet peeve of mine. It’s just damned lazy.
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
One reason to keep an LOA out of the main body is if it has a cancelation clause.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
That can still be included in the main body.
