Originally Posted by
acl65pilot
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.
I couldn't agree more. We have to get the word out to the majority of pilots though, regarding these poorly worded sections. There are a lot of pilots that are on the fence with regard to this TA and if they can be educated as to the current issues with the TA I am guessing that they would most likely vote no. That said, a lot of this language could easily be fixed prior to a vote on the TA. It would be unprecedented, but if the MEC said, "ok, we hear your concerns over some of the language and we are addressing it with the company right now" They could get the language cleaned up and I bet the TA would pass MEMRAT. That would take real leadership though.
Just my thoughts.