All under control MB??
APMR.
I'll go you one better, and ask you two questions -
One of the reps posted a notice in the crew room in Darwin, regarding the time / place of a meeting he was trying to organize, to discuss these matters with the pilot body, prior to the vote. It was removed, I believe without him being told. If this is true...
1) Who removed it?
2) Why did they do this?
Now honestly, I don't expect you to actually know the answers (unless it was you
). But you might want to think about why this was done, and apply that to your thinking on whether or not people always play entirely fair in these matters.
CR.
I'll go you one better, and ask you two questions -
One of the reps posted a notice in the crew room in Darwin, regarding the time / place of a meeting he was trying to organize, to discuss these matters with the pilot body, prior to the vote. It was removed, I believe without him being told. If this is true...
1) Who removed it?
2) Why did they do this?
Now honestly, I don't expect you to actually know the answers (unless it was you
). But you might want to think about why this was done, and apply that to your thinking on whether or not people always play entirely fair in these matters.CR.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
APMR where did I say:
I have reread all my posts and cannot for the life of me find the quote "don't agree".
I must say, it now explains a lot to me, you really do not read what people say and digest what they say. Unfortunate really
To answer your question, it is my belief that people have left because they see there is no future for them or the company with MB in control.
It's that simple. Nothing about disagreeing, more like despair.
Got it?
people have to leave because they "don't agree" with MB?
I must say, it now explains a lot to me, you really do not read what people say and digest what they say. Unfortunate really
To answer your question, it is my belief that people have left because they see there is no future for them or the company with MB in control.
It's that simple. Nothing about disagreeing, more like despair.
Got it?
Last edited by ringin; 21st Oct 2007 at 10:44.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seaeagle109,
Ok, just what and where was the attempted deception? I'm surprised I have to ask you this question - I expected you would answer it "in advance" as you knew I would ask it.
There's that contempt again - perhaps a required trait in a pilot rep? At least OAH had the integrity to duck this question when I asked it of him. Perhaps you are a little more savvy in that you know you can get away with such a statement because you are not held to anywhere near the same degree of accountability as management. You would not be so arrogantly flippant if you were under the same degree of scrutiny.
Now, onto the "comparison document". You say you "agree with it", so this must mean you agree with every comment and assertion in it. The sheer number of absurd claims and statements made therein forces one to conclude it was meant to frighten the pilots into voting NO. There was not one statement in it that even hinted the pilots were better off, or benefitting in some way.
Take the "change" that revealed calibration contract captains would be getting the $5,000 PA "special premium" for example - the comment against that "change" was "put it in the trying to buy us off column".
Nevertheless, I have picked out the three most hysterical claims and reproduce them, as well as the associated before/after clauses below.
For a memory refresher, the "comparison document" was produced by the AFAP/pilot reps and listed each change, made by management, between the draft CA document and the CA document our votes would be based on. Against each listed change was an AFAP/pilot rep "comment", or "claim" which allegedly "exposed" what the devious management were up to.
As you read these, keep it in mind that Seaeagle109 agrees with each one of these claims:
Hysterical claim 1: "This removes any right to having a weekend off".
We never had any such right. Here are the two clauses, firstly the clause as it appeared in the draft CA document (and the 1999 agreement we are currently working to), then the clause as it appeared in the proposed CA document.
Hysterical claim 3: "By inserting the word LATE into this clause removes all entitlements you previously had."
1/ Yes, they were trying to get one past us.
2/ Yes , I agree with the comparison document.
Now, onto the "comparison document". You say you "agree with it", so this must mean you agree with every comment and assertion in it. The sheer number of absurd claims and statements made therein forces one to conclude it was meant to frighten the pilots into voting NO. There was not one statement in it that even hinted the pilots were better off, or benefitting in some way.
Take the "change" that revealed calibration contract captains would be getting the $5,000 PA "special premium" for example - the comment against that "change" was "put it in the trying to buy us off column".
Nevertheless, I have picked out the three most hysterical claims and reproduce them, as well as the associated before/after clauses below.
For a memory refresher, the "comparison document" was produced by the AFAP/pilot reps and listed each change, made by management, between the draft CA document and the CA document our votes would be based on. Against each listed change was an AFAP/pilot rep "comment", or "claim" which allegedly "exposed" what the devious management were up to.
As you read these, keep it in mind that Seaeagle109 agrees with each one of these claims:
Hysterical claim 1: "This removes any right to having a weekend off".
We never had any such right. Here are the two clauses, firstly the clause as it appeared in the draft CA document (and the 1999 agreement we are currently working to), then the clause as it appeared in the proposed CA document.
“Over a 28 day roster cycle pilots will be entitled to 8 designated days off which a minimum of 2 sets will be of 2 or more consecutive days, one of which shall incorporate a Saturday and Sunday where practical.”
“Over a 28 day roster cycle pilots will be entitled to 8 designated days off which a minimum of 2 sets will be of 2 or more consecutive days, one of which shall incorporate a Saturday or Sunday unless another arrangement is mutually agreed.”
Hysterical claim 2: "The company is trying to remove this right from Airmed pilots"."No pilot shall be required to be on duty, including standby duty, for a period in excess of five (5) hours without a (30) minute break free of all duty for a meal or in excess of ten (10) hours without two (30) minute breaks free of all duty."
"No pilot shall be required to be on duty, including standby duty (excluding when on standby duty at home), for a period in excess of five (5) hours without a (30) minute break free of all duty for a meal or in excess of ten (10) hours without two (30) minute breaks free of all duty."
Hysterical claim 3: "By inserting the word LATE into this clause removes all entitlements you previously had."
"Pilots who are rostered for more than eight night operations, including Standby, as defined, in any (28) day duty cycle will be reimbursed $9.59 for each night rostered as a personal inconvenience allowance".
"Pilots who are rostered for more than eight (8) late night operations, including Standby, as defined, in any (28) day duty cycle will be reimbursed $9.59 for each night rostered as a personal inconvenience allowance".
Agree with these and all the other hysterical claims in that document do you Seaeagle109?
Last edited by APMR; 23rd Oct 2007 at 00:17. Reason: formatting fixups and typos.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Counter-rotation,
This is the first I have heard of that notice. I was also unaware of the proposed meeting.
I suggest the alleged disappearance of the notice has a simple explanation. I say that because it's disappearance was actually more likely to favour a "NO", rather than "YES" vote by the pilots.
You seem to be suggesting that "management removed it - because such a meeting may result in the pilots voting NO". Can I suggest to you that this is actually a rather naive jump to a conclusion?
I suggest this because, the meeting, if it had occurred, would have been to the pilots benefit. It would have had the effect of giving them more understanding, more clarity and generally better all round awareness of what the company was offering and how the pilots reps viewed the offer.
The pilots would have felt more certain and more aware, in other words. But by not attending that meeting, the pilots would have been deprived of that added certainty and awareness, and people (all voters, not just pilots) will, if uncertain or unsure about what they are voting on, vote to maintain the status quo.
Some questions for you about that notice:
1. Did anybody else actually see the notice before it was "removed"?
2. How many days in advance of the meeting was the notice put up?
As to your question on whether both sides always "play fair", I will say that no, it is not always the case that both sides will play fair, but can tell you that it is much, much more difficult for the management side to pull a shonky and get away with it. Management are therefore, far, far less likely to try to do so.
This is because of 1, the intense scrutiny they are under, and 2, the consequences should they get caught out.
The pilot reps, however, are not so constrained! Just look at how many pilots are calling the reps to account in this instance.
This is the first I have heard of that notice. I was also unaware of the proposed meeting.
I suggest the alleged disappearance of the notice has a simple explanation. I say that because it's disappearance was actually more likely to favour a "NO", rather than "YES" vote by the pilots.
You seem to be suggesting that "management removed it - because such a meeting may result in the pilots voting NO". Can I suggest to you that this is actually a rather naive jump to a conclusion?
I suggest this because, the meeting, if it had occurred, would have been to the pilots benefit. It would have had the effect of giving them more understanding, more clarity and generally better all round awareness of what the company was offering and how the pilots reps viewed the offer.
The pilots would have felt more certain and more aware, in other words. But by not attending that meeting, the pilots would have been deprived of that added certainty and awareness, and people (all voters, not just pilots) will, if uncertain or unsure about what they are voting on, vote to maintain the status quo.
Some questions for you about that notice:
1. Did anybody else actually see the notice before it was "removed"?
2. How many days in advance of the meeting was the notice put up?
As to your question on whether both sides always "play fair", I will say that no, it is not always the case that both sides will play fair, but can tell you that it is much, much more difficult for the management side to pull a shonky and get away with it. Management are therefore, far, far less likely to try to do so.
This is because of 1, the intense scrutiny they are under, and 2, the consequences should they get caught out.
The pilot reps, however, are not so constrained! Just look at how many pilots are calling the reps to account in this instance.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: farn north
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
APMR! Get to bed! ... and respect the knowlege and history your reps have and are applying to protect you from a fate vorse zan a fate vorse zan death! Whilst brokering a deal that will create some harmony and happiness for the present group of fine pilots...AND those that we hope will follow!... can't do it all myself... clik!
At least OAH had the integrity to duck this question when I asked it of him.
The question was answered, it's just that your retarded brain cannot understand what it reads. Or then again maybe you need someone to read for you.....
Go away moron, I think everyone has had enough of your ramblings.
And as an afterthought, you're not related to a certain Mr Smith are you???
He's a dick too!
