PCL TA fails

sherpa said:
"We put a very generous deal on the table in keeping with our desire to fairly compensate our pilots, and we were very optimistic when the contract was presented to our pilots for a vote," said Philip H. Trenary, president and CEO of parent Pinnacle Airlines Corp. "The National Mediation Board will decide the next steps and we are hopeful that we can achieve a swift resolution."
Click to expand...

Wow...what an ass hat
 
My first reaction to this was that 42% voted yes. Doesn't that mean mgt will just add the bare minimum they need to the offer to get 9% more voting yes?
 
ATN_Pilot said:
There's no guarantee that they will. I would imagine that the NMB will require both parties to negotiate for at least another 6-12 months.
Click to expand...

We were talking about this last week in Memphis at the FFDC...is there a possibility they can "ice" both sides for a year or so and let things cool off before starting again?
 
JumpWake said:
We were talking about this last week in Memphis at the FFDC...is there a possibility they can "ice" both sides for a year or so and let things cool off before starting again?
Click to expand...

Yep, they can. It's called "parking," and there's a real risk of it in this case, because the NMB probably won't be happy that members of the MEC were actively involved in trying to kill the TA. My guess is that the NMB will try to get both parties back together quickly to fix the major problem areas in the TA, but if either side tries to open up a bunch of issues, the NMB will probably park them for 6 months.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Yep, they can. It's called "parking," and there's a real risk of it in this case, because the NMB probably won't be happy that members of the MEC were actively involved in trying to kill the TA. My guess is that the NMB will try to get both parties back together quickly to fix the major problem areas in the TA, but if either side tries to open up a bunch of issues, the NMB will probably park them for 6 months.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, no one at the MEC or LEC level was "actively involved" trying to kill it. They voted, and then the PCL-ALPA "yes men" went around telling us we were stupid to vote no just based on bonus; we were also blown smoke and mirrors on how great the reserve rules were, the scope was iron-clad (but not really), etc...
 
cencal83406 said:
As far as I know, no one at the MEC or LEC level was "actively involved" trying to kill it. They voted, and then the PCL-ALPA "yes men" went around telling us we were stupid to vote no just based on bonus; we were also blown smoke and mirrors on how great the reserve rules were, the scope was iron-clad (but not really), etc...
Click to expand...

Talk to the pilots in DTW. The reps up there were pushing a NO vote pretty hard.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Yep, they can. It's called "parking," and there's a real risk of it in this case, because the NMB probably won't be happy that members of the MEC were actively involved in trying to kill the TA. My guess is that the NMB will try to get both parties back together quickly to fix the major problem areas in the TA, but if either side tries to open up a bunch of issues, the NMB will probably park them for 6 months.
Click to expand...

IMO, what the DTW guys were doing was no worse than management representatives telling people "If you vote no, we're gonna displace and furlough."

My bet? We won't see anything before the end of the year, and they're gonna just try to get 8% more people to vote "yes." Part of what may have killed this was the bonus distribution that the MEC came up with. It was based on W2 wages, so the FOs were getting the major shaft, the junior CAs on reserve were just getting the shaft and the senior CAs were walking away with the lion's share of the money. That shifted a LOT of FOs to the "no" side. The loss of vacation slide did it for some of the senior guys. Work rules did it for the reserve guys. Honestly, if the company fixed the reserve rules and left vacation slide alone, it would probably pass.
 
kellwolf said:
IMO, what the DTW guys were doing was no worse than management representatives telling people "If you vote no, we're gonna displace and furlough."

My bet? We won't see anything before the end of the year, and they're gonna just try to get 8% more people to vote "yes." Part of what may have killed this was the bonus distribution that the MEC came up with. It was based on W2 wages, so the FOs were getting the major shaft, the junior CAs on reserve were just getting the shaft and the senior CAs were walking away with the lion's share of the money. That shifted a LOT of FOs to the "no" side. The loss of vacation slide did it for some of the senior guys. Work rules did it for the reserve guys. Honestly, if the company fixed the reserve rules and left vacation slide alone, it would probably pass.
Click to expand...

Heard in the crew room (HOLDSHORT!!!! author, no less):

"Those who vote no because of the bonus are idiots."
 
I am DTW based and what was going on up there was bad. People were getting threatened by other pilots. That sign on the wall was rediucilous. If management had put up a sign like that it would have been pissed on torn down and then lit on fire in the bathroom so why should alpa be allowed to put a sign up, they shouldnt. I voted no on this contract but there are certain people in DTW that really need to chill out.

Management was in a win win situation in this scenario. IF it didnt pass they now get to continue perfect performance from us with 1999 contract rates. Does anyone thinnk they are going to get on the ball with that? I think another 2 years before the next TA
 
In EVERY base you had pilots attempting to force their "votes" to others. In MEM we had the "doom and gloom" crew for a "Yes"- some being checkairman- and others being everywhere inbetween. We also had the "vocal minority" telling people to say "No". While I never told anyone how to vote in crewroom discussions, when I was asked I made it clear that my vote was "No" and gave reasons why in reference to our current agreement, the TA, and the peer group. Some (when asked) told the questioner to vote "No" because its the only way to go, voting "yes" makes you a ..blah blah blah... Honestly I think the "pushing" for votes from some swayed pilot's votes.

There will always be a percentage that votes "Yes" to anything. (Settlement)
There will always be a percentage that votes "No" to anything. (high desires)
There will always be a vocal minority, but strong majority- it's this area that a deal is made in, you must satisfy the needs/most wants/a couple desires to get a vote in favor. This deal did not accomplish that, the proof is not in the posts of "cons" and "highlights", it's in the vote after 1200+ pilots looked over the deal and said "NO" as a majority- regardless of the 1200 differing viewpoints and opinions of 31 sections.

The vote was close because there is a mix of pilots willing to fight for what our "peer group" has and even try for some improvements (raise the bar if you will), and there are many who felt between the signing bonus, payraise, and the fact that it's a risk after 4+ years- we must settle.

This time around we are ALL back to square 1 with our vote. Standing together and telling (and in some case electing) reps what our needs, wants, and desires are IN UNITY will allow for the greatest success. This may be new territory for most pilots here on property but tracing these actions back a few decades (even before I was born!) you can see that the unity allowed the individual airline's improvements, and with time the whole industry was brought up to a level on par with the standards set by the professional pilots in every flight deck. As much as Prater is liked by some, hated by others the "Take it back" mantra does hold validity (at least to me) as a strong, yet attainable goal.

There it is, found that step off my soapbox.
 
higney85 said:
This time around we are ALL back to square 1 with our vote. Standing together and telling (and in some case electing) reps what our needs, wants, and desires are IN UNITY will allow for the greatest success. This may be new territory for most pilots here on property but tracing these actions back a few decades (even before I was born!) you can see that the unity allowed the individual airline's improvements, and with time the whole industry was brought up to a level on par with the standards set by the professional pilots in every flight deck. As much as Prater is liked by some, hated by others the "Take it back" mantra does hold validity (at least to me) as a strong, yet attainable goal.

There it is, found that step off my soapbox.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% with you. The key this time is the selection/election of the voice of pilots. If 9E pilots can find that UNITY it is possible to achieve any goals and be part of taking it back. It is all about leadership and less about politics, finding the right leaders will be the largest hurdle for this pilot group.

Cleaning house will be the hardest part, and it needs to be done sooner than later.
 
so lets build a timeline for everyone who has never been through this. I assume that the negotiation committee will be replaced. If this happens i assume that the new people will have to go to ALpa's negotiation school and then with thanksgiving and christmas coming up I have a bold prediction. I say Colgan gets a contract before we do. :rotfl:
 
Talked to one of the MEC guys today. They're collecting info from the pilots on what they want in order to fix it. He enouraged everyone in the crew room to send e-mails to the MEC people at their ALPA e-mail addresses to let them know what you want to see changed. Already sent mine in.
 
kellwolf said:
Talked to one of the MEC guys today. They're collecting info from the pilots on what they want in order to fix it. He enouraged everyone in the crew room to send e-mails to the MEC people at their ALPA e-mail addresses to let them know what you want to see changed. Already sent mine in.
Click to expand...
what do you guys think for a time line before we see another TA? 1 month, 6 months? 1 Year?
I am prepared for 1 year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top