Spot on Cujo!

Thanks Albie! Keep up your good efforts/work!!!!

(...although I think FDA LOA #2 is a "No" vote for me)

Code for lawyers? ;)

"Albie".....not a personal shot, but just an observation - maybe you (along with all of us) are just a mushroom - kept in the dark and fed you know what....

case in point - with reference to the paragraph N. of the new LOA - granting MEC Chair all powers, etc. - you said you missed that one on your first read and that you'd research and get back to us all.........

well......what'd you find out?

I, for one, am willing to give the union the benefit of the doubt, but it wouldn't SHOCK me if it were revealed there are/were some "back door deals" that us underlings just aren't being kept up to speed on - "we'll tell you when we decide you need to know" kinda thing.

the union being in reactionary mode is an accurate description, I think (the company is in the same mode too) - and unfortunately for us that's never a good mode to be in.

Considering the ongoing circumstances, the Union does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. And as far as myself, probably never will. Not being negative here but, fool (burn) me once, shame on you.....etc., etc.

Not a personal shot at Albie, but seriously, with respect to Paragraph N...

How on Earth did you "miss that one"?!?

Did you read the LOA? And how about Paragraph G? Does any pilot on the property think that's a good idea either??

It's interesting how when the economy was booming and the company was raking it in faster than they could stuff their pockets, they didn't send out letters saying "here, have some, enjoy the bounty."

But, as soon as things slow down a bit, they want us to share the pain and take money out of all of our pockets.

"I missed that one," is the same thing I heard from my rep about how the new training scheduling system and substitution or lack there of would work out.

Skypine: Okay...here's the scoop:

I called the sec/treasurer on the issue. His response: "Dude, you SECONDED the motion!" He was right.

We went over each item in a conference call. The way (N) was explained was it was simply a recognition that there will be issues in a new domicle that pop up that can be tweaked between both parties without a lot of fanfare. The SIG, Hotel Committee, legal, and the other team do the same thing day to day. Looking at it from my inside perspective and in the context of watch the leadership work very hard in Feb and Mar to have a plan in case we got to where we are now, I tended to view things from the perspective of a guy convinced the union was working very hard for the bros....all of them.

As Sean McDonald pointed out--to us privately and to his block publically...we ALREADY do this routinely and the intent is to not have to have an LOA every time a pick up point is moved or a hotel used for a STBY is changed. In that context...I agree.

I still say the LOA...however an aberation...is improved by the stuff that was added in with these amendments. I put my John Hancock on the thing and said "Yeah...its better and a step in the right direction". Despite age 60 changes, cancelled bids, accepted fare debates, etc...I think the honest intent is to find a way to wok on the HKG issues together and improve the situation for the guys over there. Period. No hyphens, coded messages, or doublespeak involved...

If any of us on the MEC got wind the company wanted to make any changes that we thought we detrimental to the team, we would certainly want to address it as a group. There would not be a unilateral decision by the chairman (who will NOT be DW in less than a year BTW....so don't make this a DW issue...) unless it was a short "yeah...that would be good for the bros" deal. Anything negative would be brought back to the team to hash out.

Now...the part that will irk the MEC leadership: I really couldn't care less if this passed or not. I bid HKG because I am willing to suck up a lot of pain to jump 100 bucks in my pay rate. I'd accept tax equilization and a section 6 move option and commute half way around the world to quit having to be a chamelon FO and get to do the crew brief.

And guys...with the company offering bids then yanking them...then doing excess bids...and yanking them....and ALPA National doing surveys about age 60 and political candidates...I UNDERSTAND completely if you feel like you get left on the sidelines about your input at times and feel like you cannot trust anyone. I get it. I see completely how you could look at (N) and see a completely different picture than I did.

All I can say is that as long as I'm on the MEC I don't think any inputs will come down and steamroll you as a result of (N). I don't say that because I a a sweet guy who loves ya.....I say in because I've seen the same committment and grit in some of the other members of the MEC. The intent of the paragraph is that if there is a better way to do things that we find--we'll do it. We do not intend to put you on a chicken truck to CAN in the middle of the night, but if we can get you a hydrofoil ride to Discovery Bay instead of a bus it would probably seem like a good deal to all concerned. THAT is the intent. If you see something else...I understand...vote as you see fit. "We aren't going to sell this to you" is a mantra I have heard from several MEC members I respect.

However--in my heart of hearts--I don't think there is any manevolent intent in that provision. It is there to allow us to tweak things for the better if we see a chance to do so and to do it quickly.

It appears I'll be a domestic FO for a long time. This LOA proably won't affect me for the next 3 years I'll be on the MEC directly. But I think its an improvement, and despite the concerns echoed here I think it will make it better for the dudes over there. But the wonderful thing is you get to vote.

If you want to chat about this....call me. I'll share what I do know.

Back to "how did I miss that?": Any of you ever sit in meetings from 0800-1830 and listen to dudes just go on and on and on? Quite frankly, union work is rewarding at times when you feel like you get to make a difference. Most of the time, however, it is time listening to 80% of what you already know trying to glean the 20% you don't know while wearing an uncomfortable set of clothes. I'm proud to be there--but it is mind numbing at times. I detested LOA I, and basically have rolled into this LOA improvement effort going "yeah, okay....whatever....now let's move to contract 2010...." Honestly--it hasn't been my front burner issue. You can throw spears at me for that if you'd like--but I'm being very open after being sick 3 days and enjoying my recovery with a cold margarita. My focus since I came here has been on the next contract, mitigated the damage from age 60 changes, and trying to find a way to pull us back together as a group. Unfortunately, events have made keeping every dude on the property my newest number one priority. I don't want to say this LOA isn't important to me, as anything that improves our collective situation is good for all us. But honestly--this one ain't personal. Vote your heart. My positions on every issue the last few years has been a matter of public record--you don't have to tell anyone how you vote but I think if you look long and hard at this you'll see more good stuff than bad.

Might suggest popping over to ALPA boards and opening a Q and A on the issues...

Can't promise the Chair will play but the Sec/Tres will be there and will take questions and inputs. I'll play as well. I'm not as invested in this LOA as some, but that doesn't mean I won't dig in and find out what I can....

Good response on Paragraph N. I still don't like it, as I will never trust Webb to make a decision that's in my best interest. However your take on it is definitely appreciated.

But what about the public ground trans paragraph, aptly named Paragraph G?

BS publicly states to anyone that will ask him, and is 100% dead-on correct, that there is NO WAY to take the 3.5 hr+ taxi/limo/van ground trans that was previously planned on and then operate a trip all night. He said simply no way, unsafe (fatigue) and just not possible. He then said he has advocated as many commerical double dead heads out of HKG as possible.

I see this as leverage. Cool, so we can now more or less force the company/scheduling to make HKG a double dead head base, which the entire crew force there would want.

But, instead of using it as such, the next thing I notice is a new LOA being pushed at me with a concessionairy paragraph G, allowing public ground trans, and thus throwing our leverage out the window. Seriously, whos idea was Paragraph G? I assume it was the companys, and our MECs repsonse should have been "No way. We want double dead heads. You aren't getting Paragraph G in there." However, it still somehow made its way into the new LOA, without any monentairy gains. We gave something up, and got nothing. Again, this is assuming the public ground trans was the companys idea. I can't even fathom the idea someone in our own union could have come up with that one.

I'd appreciate an explanation in how/why that little concession found its way into an already substandard ex-pat packet.