Nov/Dec 2013 Pilot Discussion

[Phoenix]

Uh, oh....  Retro Pay agreement changed after ratification.  
 
When we voted on the MOU the retro pay was calculated by each pilot's pay rate immediately prior to the effective date and multiplied by the number of eligible hours  (i.e. if you got a pay rate increase before the POR effective date you would have that rate multiplied by the total hours since Feb 8th.....  But after the MOU vote the company clarified with a letter and asked for a signature from the union to indicate their agreement... You can read for yourself who signed it.  They complicated the calculation, but suffice it to say their change benefits them instead of the pilots.  I know. Big surprise.  This is a very complicated accounting calculation but have no fear the company has already resolved the issue.

 

[Phoenix]

Thanks for the info. Downloaded, printed, read, and highlighted. 
Sounds to me like everything not 'implemented' remains status quo. 
The training thing hasn't been implemented, but when it is, it looks like 4 hours of pay and 2:45 of credit/day for lineholders and 4:03 pay/2:45 credit for reserves.
Did anyone see the provision for 'double-occupancy' rooms when they can't find hotel rooms for $65 or less? How do you spell "fatigued" due to your fellow pilot's snoring?!
And another thought: What if your 'roomie' is of the opposite sex?
Cheers.

 
 
Double occupancy rooms...
 
Page 7 of Bulletin 19-13... This is for on-duty rest periods in excess of five (5) hours.  On duty-rest periods... like all nighters?  

 

[Reed Richards]

Uh, oh....  Retro Pay agreement changed after ratification.  
 
When we voted on the MOU the retro pay was calculated by each pilot's pay rate immediately prior to the effective date and multiplied by the number of eligible hours  (i.e. if you got a pay rate increase before the POR effective date you would have that rate multiplied by the total hours since Feb 8th.....  But after the MOU vote the company clarified with a letter and asked for a signature from the union to indicate their agreement... You can read for yourself who signed it.  They complicated the calculation, but suffice it to say their change benefits them instead of the pilots.  I know. Big surprise.  This is a very complicated accounting calculation but have no fear the company has already resolved the issue.

Yep, and some other items were also changed by APA after ratification, when they moved around some chairs (compensation.)  All old news to the BPR, if they paid attention.  Did you just find this, I thought it had been posted before on the website?   RR

 

[nycbusdriver]

 
 
Double occupancy rooms...
 
Page 7 of Bulletin 19-13... This is for on-duty rest periods in excess of five (5) hours.  On duty-rest periods... like all nighters?  

 You're right, but does the new FAR allow for all nighters?

 

[Pi brat]

 You're right, but does the new FAR allow for all nighters?

Yes

 

[nycbusdriver]

Yes

Of course, the policy points out that the double accommodations will only be used in exceptional cases.
 
Kind of like the POTA.

 

[algflyr]

 
 
 
That being said, I think the $65 rule applies to 5 hour day rooms, not overnights.

 
Agreed...

 

[Phoenix]

Yep, and some other items were also changed by APA after ratification, when they moved around some chairs (compensation.)  All old news to the BPR, if they paid attention.  Did you just find this, I thought it had been posted before on the website?   RR

The new retro pay agreement was not changed by or signed by APA.  Some may argue it was the "right thing", and it makes sense to let the company have more money, but clearly the new agreement was signed on behalf of USAPA to let the company off the hook for language that was favorable to the pilots.  Oops, I didnt't vote for that change....  I don't think anyone in the union posted this distinction.  Certainly I didn't see a letter addressing it from the person who signed away the former language.   I have not contacted to him to ask for a clarification.   It doesn't reduce retro pay for too many pilots... so its okie dokie that we let the company off the hook for the language they gave us << sarcasm.  I'm sure we can expect a reciprocal approach to helping us out in the future.  
 
The APA had 87 Million reasons to change things around a bit, and did so to get the 87 million.  
 
Apples and oranges.   One gave back, and the others just moved around.  Big difference.  

 

[nycbusdriver]

 
Agreed...

 Actually, you are agreeing with my incorrect statement.  It was pointed out that the rooms are for 5 or more hours, which could include On Duty All Night trips.

 

[Reed Richards]

The new retro pay agreement was not changed by or signed by APA.  Some may argue it was the "right thing", and it makes sense to let the company have more money, but clearly the new agreement was signed on behalf of USAPA to let the company off the hook for language that was favorable to the pilots.  Oops, I didnt't vote for that change....  I don't think anyone in the union posted this distinction.  Certainly I didn't see a letter addressing it from the person who signed away the former language.   I have not contacted to him to ask for a clarification.   It doesn't reduce retro pay for too many pilots... so its okie dokie that we let the company off the hook for the language they gave us << sarcasm.  I'm sure we can expect a reciprocal approach to helping us out in the future.  
 
The APA had 87 Million reasons to change things around a bit, and did so to get the 87 million.  
 
Apples and oranges.   One gave back, and the others just moved around.  Big difference.  

[SIZE=10.5pt]I am not arguing the circumstances of it being signed;  quite frankly I cannot figure out if it’s bad, real bad, good, neutral, etc. But my point was this is old news, at least to the Reps (and to me.) Maybe if my reps were paying attention they could have rolled out this travesty of injustice before the membership 🙂  instead of sending me pages and pages about resolutions that are illegal and opinions that suggest foul play with absolutely no substance or proof.  Heck, maybe they did bring it up, but it was probably lost in all their chaff.  They should have been doing their own jobs first before trying to keel haul others.   My biggest complaint about this soon to be gone union is the absouluty terrible work ethic of the reps when it comes to homework.  Ever watched them waste half a meeting on old news?  I have. RR[/SIZE]

 

[Res Judicata]

The new retro pay agreement was not changed by or signed by APA.  Some may argue it was the "right thing", and it makes sense to let the company have more money, but clearly the new agreement was signed on behalf of USAPA to let the company off the hook for language that was favorable to the pilots.  Oops, I didnt't vote for that change....  I don't think anyone in the union posted this distinction.  Certainly I didn't see a letter addressing it from the person who signed away the former language.   I have not contacted to him to ask for a clarification.   It doesn't reduce retro pay for too many pilots... so its okie dokie that we let the company off the hook for the language they gave us << sarcasm.  I'm sure we can expect a reciprocal approach to helping us out in the future.  
 
The APA had 87 Million reasons to change things around a bit, and did so to get the 87 million.  
 
Apples and oranges.   One gave back, and the others just moved around.  Big difference.

Your fake union has fumbled every ball they've ever touched. Why in the world would you expect the most dysfunctional, acutely incompetent group of imbeciles ever charged with a duty to represent wouldn't screw the pooch at every opportunity? Thank God the West gets an independent seat at the MB table. You saw how effective Easties were at SLI negotiations the last time...if history has shown anything, its USTUPID is utterly incapable of learning from your mistakes. My guess is you're going to end up wishing you'd have taken the Nic when the West is done with you.

Get ready for one more emotionally fueled hairball. Just let James Anderson/Claxon the Killer" just run things. Making emotionally charged decisions is his strong point.

 

[Reed Richards]

Get ready for one more emotionally fueled hairball. Just let James Anderson/Claxon the Killer" just run things. Making emotionally charged decisions is his strong point.

My Christmas wish is that if you get a seat, LEO fills it. 

 

[Phoenix]

[SIZE=10.5pt]I am not arguing the circumstances of it being signed;[/SIZE]

 
 
Me neither.  The signature speaks for itself    It was signed and it cost pilots money.   There is no sense is denying he signed it or its affect.  I could even agree with him that it was right, maybe, but the fact is the new language replaces the  old language and let the company off the hook for language THEY originally gave us.  The money is now gone but it only affects a relatively small portion of the pilots so it won't even be noticed, much less understood by the vast majority.  🙂
 

My Christmas wish is that if you get a seat, LEO fills it. 

 
I would love to see the discovery that LEO would be subjected to in that lawsuit.  

 

[luvthe9]

Your fake union has fumbled every ball they've ever touched. Why in the world would you expect the most dysfunctional, acutely incompetent group of imbeciles ever charged with a duty to represent wouldn't screw the pooch at every opportunity? Thank God the West gets an independent seat at the MB table. You saw how effective Easties were at SLI negotiations the last time...if history has shown anything, its USTUPID is utterly incapable of learning from your mistakes. My guess is you're going to end up wishing you'd have taken the Nic when the West is done with you.
Get ready for one more emotionally fueled hairball. Just let James Anderson/Claxon the Killer" just run things. Making emotionally charged decisions is his strong point.

Your Nic is dead Psycho. And you just pegged the needles like you did when they asked you about the sheep you hung with in Texas. You get NO seat at MB and AA pilots don't arbitrate.

 

[Reed Richards]

 
 
Me neither.  The signature speaks for itself    It was signed and it cost pilots money.   There is no sense is denying he signed it or its affect.  I could even agree with him that it was right, maybe, but the fact is the new language replaces the  old language and let the company off the hook for language THEY originally gave us.  The money is now gone but it only affects a relatively small portion of the pilots so it won't even be noticed, much less understood by the vast majority.   🙂
 
 
[SIZE=9pt]And the changes APA made also  "speak for themselves?"  Do each of those changes affect each and every pilot at both airlines EXACTLY the same? Just as with the change to the reto, I have no idea. But I do have an idea that it being brought up at this time, after all these months, on the eve of finality all things local USAPA politics, has the exactly same meaning going forward as our ex-president suing us over his/our trademark. Entire empires that have been built over the decades here within our small union(s) are about to be rendered moot in 5 or so days. Bravo.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=9pt]We now have at least 6 sitting USAPA reps claiming one of the founding tenets of the union, the avoidance of roll call, somehow now is wrong. They also now, obviously never even read the CBL until as of late, have a problem with the dissolution phase of our existence.  75% of our pilots agree with our new path, and about 1% speak louder than all the rest against a process that has moved us forward for the first time since 1998. Yikes.  The boogey man and his evil gang are about to get me the single biggest one day improvement in my lifestyle than all before combined, absent a terror attack.  It was the pilots that voted, of course. But it took leadership to get us here.  Chicken and Egg.  RR  🙂  Note: I just added a smily face.  Enjoying the give and take here Phoenix, thanks for the logical back and forth![/SIZE]
.