Originally Posted by
Bucking Bar
Denny,
Exactly, the last contract was sent out for ratification. The MEC itself voted it down 3 times (4 if the initial HECK NO counts). The MEC did not recommend it.
At the time the pilots were clamoring to see the thing. Richard Anderson said he was going to pull the deal off the table and offer less. Did the pilots deserve the right to see it before Richard Anderson's threat expired?
The thought was, if the pilots turned it down the voice of the pilots would be more persuasive than just the 19 member MEC.
Now, the MEC Admin believed Richard Anderson would make good on his threats and they DID push ratification.
The pilots did not make the distinction between the Reps and the Admin.
Richard Anderson broke constructive engagement because in his view it always worked out better for the pilots. In any event he did not want our costs higher than United & American.
Of course at the time who knew United would use our rejected TA to leapfrog us and since they did not have profit sharing (to speak of), profit sharing was not an issue. Richard left and we patterned off United who had patterned off of our non-existent rejected TA.
Who knew?
Worked out. A festivus miracle if ever I saw one.
Not true, at least according to my rep at the time. I asked that specific question, albeit I was a bit leading.
Me- "Are you guys HOPING this gets voted down to send some sort of message, because to me, this is beyond NO, this is almost insulting."
Rep- "There is real value here, and if its not approved, the next offer will be of lesser value. I support it, and you should too."
It 'worked out' because of the line pilots. Your version of the MEC's motivation is much different than mine