Man, I believe you need to go back and read for comprehension this time!

Look at the part where he quoted an MEC e-mail, where the MEC 1st statement is "The LOA is not concessionary."
And then look at his sarcastic statement where he communicates that going involuntarily is concessionary.

Besides, you are just not playing nice!

No more drunk posting for you!

 

The thing that fails to get mentioned alot is the lack of leadership in the MECs. I know, if you have a problem then put your name in the hat. Yada, Yada, Yada. But the MEC should reflect the union membership. They should be willing to vote no, instead of following like sheep to whatever the union leaderhip says. If the MEC votes 11-1 on anything, it should be an automatic to pass for the membership. The fact the MEC voted 11-1 and the LOA may or may not pass on the slimmest of margins, indicates the union has lost touch with the membership. This is the most disturbing thing for me.

 

....................

 

I went to the LOA mtg today ... I had been disappointed in the Age 60 decision. I left the LOA impressed with the leadership of my MEC. Everyone has an opinion about what amount would be appropriate for a move to one of these FDA's ... No amount of money is enough for myself to move to HKG, but with that said 40K a year and possible upgrade to the left seat of 757 works for me. IMO … Voting NO on this LOA is like taking a hit on a SOFT 17 when the dealer is showing a 6 (Blackjack) ...

 

I'm with you. I couldn't believe the griping and ignorant whining about a Fortune 500 standard tax package, from a Big 4 accounting firm. Post-Enron, the chances of one of those companies fudging numbers is pretty small.

 

First, I'll throw a few bones out there.

I like Len Kelly. My data points with him as an ALPA guy and part time military man were good. He followed through--called me back about my concerns and spent way more time with a one-each average 727 FO answering my questions and addressing my concerns than I thought he would.. Regardless of what he has or hasn't done as an ACP/disciplinarian, he has always shot straight with me. I appreciated that. Like JL's letter, I think his "intent" to minimize the STV pain is legit.

I like Wes "Sleepy" Reed and Tony Cutler. I think they generally do the best they can and really try to do what they thing is best for the crew force. I approached both of them at the "Bob Chimenti wants to fight the crowd" meeting a while back and suggested they find a way to quantify the 30 day STV thing. To their credit, they did. Anyone on these boards knows that while I disagree with them from time to time (like age 60), I have nothing but respect for them as guys doing a tough job. I do not necessarily feel the same way about some of our MEC members.

DM. You know--I ran afoul some years back of the guy. I asked for mil leave in December to make up some sorties I missed in Sep-Nov during my upgrade. He (in a few roundabout ways) accused me of "scamming" the system. I explained I wasn't, and was willing to compromise--but I needed some days for some sorties. My commander got involved. Eventually--we both lost. I worked Christmas day and New Years, but got my sorties. I skipped two M-F periods during peak but make my RAP lookback for the year. Fedex lost me for 10 or so days during a busy time. It wasn't perfect. I always felt bad that my "new boss" and I got off like that before I could even consolidate. However, I've had 2 back surgeries in 2 years, and since then whenever I've needed something he's always on the phone calling me back within 2 hours. I wondered sometimes if his "sick" letters and attitude came from a personal position or if someone above him was doing the classic leadership 101 thing--making the # 2 (or whatever position in rank he held at the time) the "bad cop" while the leader looked like the "great old man" to the troops. I know a lot of people HATE the guy. My hope is he goes to the line--finds out he likes it--and lives peaceful existence the rest of his career here. I hope I get the chance to buy him a beer as a "Mister" instead of "ACP" and maybe I can ask "so...WTF was THAT all about?..."

I think our new CP showing up at an ALPA meeting was just a concerned guy trying to get his side of the story. Military guys--like me--tend to look at the organization and the "bros" as being on the same side. Its not until we get to our airline job do we figure out sometimes those interests diverge instead of converge.

Does any of this change the LOA's verbage? For the life of me, I cannot see why if we can't publish all these letters, have all these meetings, and answer countless emails--that somehow we cannot "fix" the STV paragraph or better yet put a red line through the whole mess.

My belief? Two weeks ago I thought this would pass. Lately, I've gotten phone calls, seen emails, and noticed the various chain letters going around. I think regardless of anyone's spin, this LOA is going to fail. I will not mourn its failure.

So where will we be when we wake up the day it dies? I think we'll see an angry, but not shocked management team. I think we'll see a disappointed MEC working hard to "spin" this into a postive win somehow. Whatever happens, there is no need to panic, and no need to abandon civility. We can either go back to the table and try to adjust the most objectionable areas of the agreement, or we can accept working overseas with volunteers under the current CBA. Neither outcome is the end of the world--for either party.

There are, however, some people I am extremely disappointed in. The tone of the responses on STV questions from the block 11 and block 8 rep show me these guys are out of touch with the majority of their constituents. They aren't my block. You guys do what you want with them. My suggestion is ask them both to resign and/or recall them. Get someone who doesn't use terms like "not much of a hardship" or "industry standard" when they discuss involuntary separations from your family. The block 7 rep has been notably silent on a variety of issues. Tony says he contributes to the LEC input, but a more aggressive presence might be nice. I humbly suggest we find someone with the heart and ability to aggressively communicate with those folks the first chance we get as well.

 

I hope you're doubling down on that bet

 

The whiners are weak. There will always be people who nickle & dime a proposal to death.

Having said that, the gray areas in the LOA are also weak. The MEC has made many good arguements to some complaints about the LOA. The problem is, the point the MEC members make need to be written into the LOA. There is too much gray area in the LOA.

Additionally, I've heard two different theories: 1) SVT's will go senior, 2) the lack of pay at the FDA's will be made up by being able to bid up to captain.

Well...which on is it?

 

AMEN, Brother, AMEN!! Let's have an AMEN from the back row now...

Morons of the web, don't be swayed by their Svengali-like meetings. "We have no leverage" and "they don't have time to fix this" all in the same day? Come on, fellas... There is no, and I mean no, "fixing this later" that will happen. This LOA takes away language we fought for over 2 previous contracts. No STV, it's specifically prohibited in our current CBA and you dirtbags want to give that up? FDA bonus in our current CBA, LOA takes away the bonus if you want to stick with the current CBA options... Anyone who thinks this is acceptable needs to go somewhere and detox.

Start with what we currently have in our CBA. Add to it only - NO GD SUBTRACTIONS ALLOWED!!!! Get your minds around that as a foundation for negotiating and we'll do ok.

Let them eat SIBA...

 

Blackjack challenged here... but don't you always hit a soft 17?