What happens in August?

kellwolf said:
An interview at Delta for the senior guys.....
Click to expand...

tumblr_m68essUqBj1r7qe2l.gif
:D
 
We all know that the SSP is Delter's plan to keep people around long enough for the wind down of the -200s. A few will go but many will go elsewhere.

I'm just hoping the plan backfires and people leave so quick that they either hire (good luck) or park the airplanes waaaayyy faster than planned.

In exchange for that crappy LOA we got a "sorry guys".
 
My concern is when I get furloughed / put on leave August 2nd I will still have a number at my airline but how many flight schools are going to be willing to hire a guy that will have the option to leave to go back to their airline job after only instructing at the school for a couple hundred hours? I wonder what big flight schools like US Aviation and TransPac would think about that?
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Two parts:

1. The claim that only the senior pilots are promised the SSP, when in reality it applies to everyone on the list; and

2. The claim that this was some sort of trade of one for the other.
Click to expand...

On the first part, I guess we'll see when it finally trickles down to the junior guys.....after they finally upgrade. Remember, the language calls for them to be CAs or have been a CA at Pinnacle at some point. So in that regard, guys are more likely to get hired at Delta quicker OUTSIDE of the SSP. As for the second, I never said it was a trade. I also never said ONLY the senior pilots were promised the SSP. People tend to read a lot into statements around here when people say things that aren't necessarily something they agree with. I think the SSP was a shaft job that will likely only benefit the senior guys. The junior guys, if they ever see, won't see it for years. It still remains to be seen how it will shake it in reality, but following the logic, that's how it sounds.

I had lost all respect and faith in the union leadership at 9E long before I left. I guess it just carries over. I still have a lot of friends there that I keep in touch with. Nothing I hear from any of them is even coming close to changing my mind on that opinion. And yes, even though I'm long gone from that place, I still have an opinion.
 
kellwolf said:
As for the second, I never said it was a trade.
Click to expand...

Sure you did. The question was "I hope you guys got something good in return for that LOA," and you replied with "an interview at Delta for the senior guys." Sorry, but that's clearly you saying that the SSP was the trade for the LOA .

I also never said ONLY the senior pilots were promised the SSP.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you think "an interview at Delta for the senior guys" says anything else.
 
kellwolf, ATN_Pilot explained it nicely.

I'd also like to add that this was negotiated while the company was under bankruptcy protection and the MEC had zero negotiating capital. So while this deal is far from perfect, it gives everyone time to find something else they wouldn't have had if they let it burn to the ground. Let me also point out that the pilot group overwhelming supported it
 
Pilotdude3407 said:
ZW. Our union would sue them so fast if they attempted to bag those that didn't meet the requirements, it would make their head spin. It is not the fault of the pilot. They were hired long before any mandated ATP rule came out. Nowhere in our contract does it say you can be canned for what the FEDs put out.
Click to expand...

So, here's a quick look into the devious minds of some of our managements. You say there isn't language in the contract that allows them to fire a pilot due to the FAA changing the requirements. Some devious managements would disagree. The contract only says that they can't fire a PILOT without due cause. The company would argue that you aren't a qualified pilot anymore and they are free to let you go. Here's the language from the 9E contract:

XX . “PILOT ” means a Captain or First Officer for the Company, or an individual who is in training to qualify as a Captain or First Officer for the Company whose name appears on the Pilots’ System Seniority List.

Z. “FIRST OFFICER” means a Pilot who is second-in-command of an aircraft, who shall assist or relieve the Captain in the operation of an aircraft, and who is properly qualified and designated by the Company to serve as and holds a current airman’s certificate authorizing him to serve as such.

So. A Pilot must be a Captain or First Officer and a First Officer must hold a current certificate authorizing him to fly as FO. With the rule change FO's who don't meet the time requirements are not eligible for the certificate which would allow them to continue flying so they are no longer a PILOT with the company. Yes, this is devious, but an arbitrator would no doubt side with the company because why should the company be required to pay a person who is incapable of performing their duties any more?

Now, that was 9E's language which compelled the MEC to ensure the company couldn't fire these pilots, but rather put them on a leave of absence and guarantee their job upon being eligible for an ATP (as a last resort). Perhaps the ZW language is better? Here's the ZW Language:

AA. “PILOT” means a Captain or First Officer whose name appears on the AWAC Pilots’ System Seniority List.

Q. “FIRST OFFICER” means a pilot who is second-in-command and any part of whose duty is to assist or relieve the Captain in the manipulation of the controls of an aircraft including takeoff and landing of such aircraft, who is properly qualified to serve as and who holds a current airman’s certificate authorizing him to serve as such pilot.

Perhaps you should ask your grievance guys about how fast they would sue the company and what they think their chances of winning would be? I certainly hope your management isn't as devious as our management and treats these guys fairly. However, you should understand both the strengths AND weaknesses of contracts before claiming that you have a guarantee position. Representing pilots, defending contracts, and creating good language is difficult at best.
 
Soul Brotha' said:
Holy crap, you're alive! Did you transfer to JFK yet?
Click to expand...

Yep. Went there earlier this month.

Seggy, it's kinda interesting to see how you "go with the flow" when it comes to union issues. The MEC had no negotiatiing captial, therefore they should just roll over and take what the company gives them? That's what it sounds like you're saying. How many of those that "overwhelmingly supported it" based on what the MEC told them would be happening now think they were sold snake oil? Based on the people I talk to, many of them "yes" voters on that contract, now say they weren't told the whole truth. A few feel they were outright lied to. The company was screaming "We're gonna have to furlough, so here's language that gets you lots of money if it happens in the first year." Then, almost as soon as the deal was done, they announced no furloughs in the first year, thereby taking away that whole thing. Many of the junior guys on the chopping block voted "yes" based on that when they would have otherwise voted "no" because they were looking at a substantial chunk of change.

It sometimes seems that you and ATN will blindly defend anything that comes from an MEC, almost without question. The MEC that took over at Pinnacle lost me completely based on their own actions. I repeatedly sent e-mails to the MEC chair and Communications chair to see what the P2P committee could do to help. I never recieved a reply from either. What I DID get a few months later was an e-mail from the NEW P2P chair asking if I was interested in joining the new P2P committee they had just formed. Funny, considering I WAS the P2P chair. So, they created a new committee with a new chair when one already existed. I never recieved any explanation as to why 1) my e-mails were ignored and 2) why I was suddenly booted without explanation. So, no. I have little respect for the MEC at 9E and I don't trust much of what they tell their pilots.
 
kellwolf said:
Yep. Went there earlier this month.

Seggy, it's kinda interesting to see how you "go with the flow" when it comes to union issues. The MEC had no negotiatiing captial, therefore they should just roll over and take what the company gives them? That's what it sounds like you're saying.
Click to expand...

Steve, I'm not saying that at all. The deal signed was not the first deal the company gave the MEC. Negotiations took place and a deal was reached. Do you really think this deal was just "given" to the MEC?

How many of those that "overwhelmingly supported it" based on what the MEC told them would be happening now think they were sold snake oil? Based on the people I talk to, many of them "yes" voters on that contract, now say they weren't told the whole truth. A few feel they were outright lied to.
Click to expand...

Very easy solution then, if people feel they were lied to, then why don't they recall the reps and replace them?

The company was screaming "We're gonna have to furlough, so here's language that gets you lots of money if it happens in the first year." Then, almost as soon as the deal was done, they announced no furloughs in the first year, thereby taking away that whole thing. Many of the junior guys on the chopping block voted "yes" based on that when they would have otherwise voted "no" because they were looking at a substantial chunk of change.
Click to expand...

See above.

It sometimes seems that you and ATN will blindly defend anything that comes from an MEC, almost without question.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I feel the MEC was extremely behind the curve on a myriad of issues concerning legacy Pinnacle training issues. However, I wasn't there at the time and was told by you to 'get over it'.

The MEC that took over at Pinnacle lost me completely based on their own actions. I repeatedly sent e-mails to the MEC chair and Communications chair to see what the P2P committee could do to help. I never recieved a reply from either. What I DID get a few months later was an e-mail from the NEW P2P chair asking if I was interested in joining the new P2P committee they had just formed. Funny, considering I WAS the P2P chair. So, they created a new committee with a new chair when one already existed. I never recieved any explanation as to why 1) my e-mails were ignored and 2) why I was suddenly booted without explanation. So, no. I have little respect for the MEC at 9E and I don't trust much of what they tell their pilots.
Click to expand...

I can't speak what happened, but to say I blindly agree with all the MEC's actions is just not true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top