queue

74% is simply mob rule. It's not the most intelligent nor best solution.



We need to "move forward" and isolate all the flaws of the contract now, and there are MANY. Keep a running list, decide which ones are requirements vs. nice to have, and use that to determine if we can say "mission accomplished" instead of how it was done by the MEC/NC and their surveys. It's far too easy for remove requirements from the criteria we use to arrive at a singable contract. For example, who decided it was acceptable to keep the dependability policy, which is in fact, worse now!?



What we need is a system where a small number of people can introduce a constraint, but only a large majority (e.g.95%) can vote to remove it from being used in negotiations. For example, if 5 people say "we want a snap-up clause", then it becomes a requirement for the company to agree to, or else we push to strike. However, if 95% of all members (not just those who attend or use the ALPA proxy vote scam) vote it down, then it becomes a "nice to have" and therefore disposable at negotiations.



The goal is to set a high bar to meet or else strike. During strike, then we can start picking and choosing what to further convert from requirement to nice-to-have. It's crucial that we decrease our demands *only* after a strike is in play BECAUSE that's the only time we have an immediate bargaining position. The reason we got a bad contract is, besides the MEC/NC & B6 Pilots having low RJ standards, is because we're all complicit in allowing the terms of negotiation to be rewritten outside of strike.