Originally Posted by fdxflyer

Actually, NO. I (personally) do not think you are correct. I believe you are making the same argument that the MEC made last time with #1. We can look at that argument now and say the were definitely wrong.

Voting NO doesn't mean we want to keep #1. It means we don't approve of the fix.

I find this line of thinking very disruptive to our ability to fix our contract of any deficiency in the future. As long as any area is "improved", people can always use this line of argument to vote "yes", even if it doesn't meet the minimum standard with which we entered negotiations. Will you vote for the next contract if it has a .05 pay raise? Why not (if not)? It would be turning down additional compensation that some people could use. Would voting no on that .05 pay raise be saying we would rather just keep our current contract (as you suggest with the LOA above)?

I will vote NO on 2 because (like 1) it does not meet the minimum standard of which I would approve a Foreign Duty Assignment Letter of Agreement. That is what I am saying when I vote NO!

Yes, there are "enhancements." Vote however you want. I don't believe this vote is nearly as significant as the last. The MEC blew it on #1. They pressed hard. They didn't understand the wants/needs of the crew force. They didn't understand how the seniority would play out.

We really hurt ourselves by voting in an LOA that couldn't fill the base. By passing the first LOA, the company could incrementally add small "enhancements" to find the minimum possible expense required to fill this base. Poor negotiating strategy to say the least.

I don't blame FE. He just showed up at the card table with a poor hand. But, we better hope we do better on the next contract with our leverage even if we don't think we have it.