O.K. Purpletail I'll explain:
1)"If this TA is voted in, the membership has no future vote on whether we
restart negotiations in 2012, or for that matter anytime in the future
as the contract renews without change each year unless the MEC forces
contract negotiations."
SS has explained numerous times that he views this as a 12 month deal with an optional 12 month extension. No where can you show me language that the contract will "renew without change each year unless the MEC forces contract negotiations". This TA is only good for the next 12 months and then we can be in Section 6 negotiations if WE choose. That is an amendable date of FEB 2012! BUT if we decide to take the next 3% raise based on whatever for 12 more months then we have an amendable date of FEB 2013! THAT'S IT. That my friend doesn't require anyones vote. Not you, me, the MEC, or the Company! This is not a contract in perpetuity like the letter falsely proclaimed.
2) "I predict that if this TA is voted in, we will not have another contract
for 4 years. That means our current contract, with a few small tidbits
from the company, becomes a 9 year contract! There is no second chance
to vote for new negotiations folks. This is it."
This TA will become your "new contract", call it a bridge, a bandaid, whatever it is a "new contract". Meaning new start date, and an amendable date. It's the entire contract, not bits and pieces. It doesn't matter what sections were changed or not. So this can be a 1 year or a 2 year contract! How long the next negotiation takes is up to us. So how you get 9 year contract is beyond me. Do you mean it will take 7 YEARS of NEGOTIATIONS after this contract is amendable to sign a new contract? How do you come to that conclusion, past history? That wont help your argument there will it? Basically you are forwarding a very extreme, even unfathomable statement. So if you say 9 year contract, well then I think we have a 1 year and 9 day contract! Yep 9 days to complete an entire re-write of our Contract...every section even the stuff on Management Pilots! Pretty outrageous wouldn't you agree? Well that's how this letter from Captain Thometz reads, like someone out of touch with the reality of the TA and the positives and negatives that are clear enough for each of us to understand and discuss. But how can you have an honest discussion when the facts are so distorted or misinterpreted by you with your post? I can have an open and honest discussion if you want to talk about the 6% raise or the monthly housing allowance for the FDA or the per diem rates or anything else that is part of this TA, not innuendo, falsehoods, and far flung scenarios.
So that is what is "down right wrong" with this section of his letter! Sorry but words matter and the facts are important. We're all intelligent enough to discuss the finer points on either side of this TA, but lets try not to distort the issues.