surreal1221
Well-Known Member
I hope they do then.
I hope the ASA MEC does the same.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
XJT contract
- Thread starter Blackhawk
- Start date
I hope they do then.
I hope the ASA MEC does the same.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ComplexHiAv8r
Well-Known Member
Can one side send it out and not the other?surreal1221 said:
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
Absolutely.
The extensions and modifications (whatever they may be) are for each individual pilot group.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ComplexHiAv8r
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the update. So if either release both groups actually will get to see it, just not vote on it.surreal1221 said:
Blackhawk
Well-Known Member
Yeah, that's the scuttlebutt I'm hearing, at least on the ASA side. How ironic would it be if the ASA side rejects it and the XJT side passes it?
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
Yeah, that's the scuttlebutt I'm hearing, at least on the ASA side. How ironic would it be if the ASA side rejects it and the XJT side passes it?
I'm not speechless cause here I go:
I'm speechless. If it doesn't make it out of the MEC we should expect nothing short of a grand explanation why they, collectively, did not approve. None of this - we can't discuss it in public because it would erode our negotiating position in the future.
Failing a grand explanation - there will need to be some swift changes for those who wish to not stand accountable for their actions.
Funny how you can't seem to find MEC meeting minutes on the MEC's website. Equally funny how nearly every meeting is ran in executive session.
Sadly it'll take us about two months to have this week's meeting minutes approved in the next MEC meeting so we know who to hold accountable. Two months is merely my guess...but MEC Officer elections are coming up and I imagine it'll be at that meeting that this week's meeting minutes will be approved. Where they end up afterwards is another story all together.
In closing:
If it's not good enough this pilot group deserves to know why not. Immediately. The end.
Time to see how this plays out.
ComplexHiAv8r said:
The extensions, if they escape the respective MECs will then go to their respective pilot groups for approval.
XJT MEC Approves Extension ----> ERJ pilot vote.
ASA MEC Approves Extension ---> CRJ pilot vote.
If either doesn't approve the extension, then that respective group will likely never know the details or legitimate, specific, issues that caused the respective MEC to not approve it to be sent to the pilot group for vote.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
And it'll be on its way to the ASA pilots in the near future.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Blackhawk
Well-Known Member
Yup. Email just sent out by the MEC. They voted on it a few days ago but did not want to announce their decision until LXJT MEC had a chance to vote as well.
Sigh of relief.
89-LX
Well-Known Member
Yeah, that's the scuttlebutt I'm hearing, at least on the ASA side. How ironic would it be if the ASA side rejects it and the XJT side passes it?
That will NOT be good for the ASA side at all. You will see why soon enough.
Blackhawk
Well-Known Member
Not sure what you mean. ASA side MEC is sending it to the pilots. How is this bad?
89-LX
Well-Known Member
Misunderstood you. I thought you meant the ASA pilots vote no, while the XJT pilots vote yes. Not sending the document out.
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Blackhawk
Well-Known Member
That was the initial rumor but it was announced today that they voted to send it to the pilot.
Jack-A-Roe
Well-Known Member
From what I gather it's that an ASA pilot can no longer get awarded a nap line and then drop or swap all the naps for the same amount of block time in a 4 day and get min guarantee for completing that one trip.
Blackhawk
Well-Known Member
I will wait until I see it Monday. However, the memo from management states:
"...
First, let’s outline what is contained in this agreement:
Their emphasis, not mine. If there is something like that I would consider it a change in work rules that is not an improvement. Not to say it would be a deal killer for me- not many NAPS at my base- but not what they said.
"...
First, let’s outline what is contained in this agreement:
- All work rules to remain the same, or see improvements
Their emphasis, not mine. If there is something like that I would consider it a change in work rules that is not an improvement. Not to say it would be a deal killer for me- not many NAPS at my base- but not what they said.
Blackhawk
Well-Known Member
First year FO pay $37/hour on -200, $40/hour on 700/900.
Pay increase for others not great, but combined with increase in per diem and profit sharing (minimum $1000 in 2017, $1500 in 2018), comes to about $3000/year more.
It's an extension- not great, but more than what we have. Also, I will suck it up so first year FOs get $.
Pay increase for others not great, but combined with increase in per diem and profit sharing (minimum $1000 in 2017, $1500 in 2018), comes to about $3000/year more.
It's an extension- not great, but more than what we have. Also, I will suck it up so first year FOs get $.