Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
That is false. My reps gave no such direction to the NC to pursue this in the 117
negotiations. In all the voluminous and constant emails from my council and the MEC over the last year, not a word
about pursuing CDO's. Not a word.
If you have actual evidence to the contrary, please post it.
Carl
Originally Posted by
Karnak
According to the comments during the open parts of the meeting this week, CDO's were there
from the beginning. Maybe CE or the others that have reported on the meeting could chime in here.
My reps say it was there. Your reps never mentioned it. Noted.
Originally Posted by
Sink r8
What's your explanation for this TA? The NC going rogue, and throwing CDO's in at the last session? Did you read
CE's reports frim the meeting? Are you calling him misguided, or just a liar, when he said it was obvious the MEC
was prepared for extensive questions on CDO's?
Gentlemen-
Here's everything I know about that subject:
I was asked to leave the room for the closed sessions when the reps were doing things like giving "direction" to the negotiators and/or discussing whether the direction that was previously given had been achieved in the TA. etc. etc.
Therefore I can not say which individual reps from which councils favored or opposed CDOs. I also do not know where the original idea of possibly pursuing CDOs in this agreement came from. I am aware of the Council 20 resolution, but that was a few years old and I have no idea if it had any influence here or not.
I can't say with absolute metaphysical certainty of course because I was not in those closed sessions but it seemed pretty clear to me that 100% of the reps have been fully aware for weeks and months now that at least some version of CDOs were being discussed, and that CDOs (or at least the possibility of CDOs)
were a part of the direction given to the negotiators by the MEC
as a body. That fact was evident from the first day discussions. There obviously may have been reps who strongly opposed that "direction". I don't know any individual rep's position.
I also do not know to what extent the final CDO language in the TA conformed to the wishes of the MEC. But I think its
very safe to say that the negotiators did not come up with the idea of CDOs on their own and then spring them on the MEC in this TA. The MEC was aware the whole time.
Who is responsible for failing to adequately communicate the possibility of CDOs to the line pilots before negotiating them into a TA? That is an open question. The MEC as a whole? The administration? The reps who favored CDOs? The reps who opposed CDOs? I don't know. I do think we need to have that discussion.
I think I can safely say that NOBODY anticipated the intensity of the firestorm that would ignite when they finally did hand out the actual language at the meeting. That caught them completely off guard.
Even Donatelli's Chairman Letter, where CDOs were an obscure reference way down as the 7th bullet point--
·
Establishes split duty periods with scheduling protections above and beyond the FAR and a 7:30 pay guarantee.
did not really have the huge effect. I think most of us were still scratching our heads a little bit and wondering exactly what the **** they were talking about. (the NWA guys may have known, most of us DAL guys did not). But when the actual language got out on this forum and people saw
3 hours behind the door -- that's when the explosion occurred.
I definitely think that should be a lesson learned. Bullet points don't cut it.
It was interesting to watch this thing evolve at the meeting. When the CDOs were first made public and the e-mails started to come in, the reps who favored the TA seemed to still be willing to go with it but they knew they would certainly have to send any TA with CDOs to MEMRAT.
The second day when the blizzard of e-mails hit, then they
all knew there was no way they could ever vote for this thing and send it out.
That's when they closed the meeting again and gave the negotiators some new "direction".