Originally Posted by
1234
I will admit that I do not know what the policy is regarding negotiations and TA's, but I guess that I really don't understand the complaint that the negotiators reach a TA before MEC approval. Wouldn't that always be the case. At some point the negotiating committee has a deal that they think is finished and will then present it to the MEC for their approval. At some point both sides say that they are finished negotiating pending approval form their bosses (MEC/exec). What am I missing?
Given the words used by a few of the Reps, it seems that the reps would have prefered to provide direction, and not be notified of things like pay rates when they were presented with a TA.
When you are below the direction in an area or out of the direction box from the Reps, I have always seen it as standard practice to go back to the bosses; the reps, and see if the TA can be signed, we need to keep talking, or absent an agreement with the new direction on acomprehensive package, a TA will not be reached.
It falls along the words in the chairman's letter. The stuff about no sacrificing the product for expediency. Its also what I took out of many of their letters as their reasoning for voting no. The TA failed to reach the valuation of their direction or their pilots.
Also if this is the case in DTW, where TT admits that their pilots asked for lower money and valuation, What does it say about other bases that voted yes on the deal? Did they follow the will of their pilots? Did they provide direction that matched the survey? Were they OK when the TA(product) came back below the acceptable level? Honest questions that need to be asked. No more no less.