Originally Posted by
Regularguy
On the more serious side of this TA;
What I find forming in all the NO voters is basically three (OK I added a fourth) things:
1. Some just vote NO because they always will.
2. Some believe this was/is an opportunity to stick it to the man (UAL).
3. The main failure of the negotiations seems to be the reserve plight and the plight seems to be two things QOL for commuters and Short Call.
4. Some believe 13% (on top of the 3%) is chump change.
I know it's a bit simple but go back and read the posts and I believe those three/four things summarize them all. Maybe someone else can shed some other ideas as the vote approached this next week.
You said all that but didn't explain why the yes vote should prevail. Excuse the NO voters for not trusting the timing and reasoning of the company offer. No, I don't trust them because they've done nothing to earn that trust. I've voted more yes than no on many issues with a more reasoned MEC recommendation. You are right the 13% is chump change compared to a contract that offers compensation along with QOL. Let's not work back to the draconian contracts that Lorenzo forced on our CAL brothers. Many of those guys still remember. This piecemeal approach is a move in that direction.