Originally Posted by
Sink r8
I do think you'll agree with me that it will be important for the MEC to at least explain how/why they thought the TA is consistent with the survey. The no-voters say it isn't. Inasmuch as I don't normally value pro-con papers, I'd like some forensic work done on this thing pronto.
We have a TA now no matter what. So of course its going to be voted on by us. Fine. But if we send it back with clear directions that its not nearly enough, I'd expect the second TA to be significantly better (and really better, not a bunch of cost neutral money shuffling).
If we can't get a mutual agreement, we head into mediation, way earlier than usual thanks to our current language. We head towards self help in an already accelerated process and further expidite it by minimizing the number of open items. The NMB doesn't just sit on its hands and pressure labor. The company is also pressured, especially if the number of open items is reasonable and all we're asking for is profitable LCC parity for 130 seaters and up from there and profitable LCC parity scope. Put the ball in the company's court and force them to negotiate with themselves to keep the large RJ's they have.