drftddgr

Sorry for a new thread on same topic but the others are getting so long and I want to go in a little different direction

I watched the video and must admit it moved me from 100% NO to only 60% NO. I am going to list goods, acceptables, and bads (IMO) for your comments.

Good-Asap,foqa. But these should be automatic anyway

Acceptable-3%, FDA Loa

Bad/unacceptable-1%lump, 4a2b. The 1%is insulting and shows no good faith. 4a2b entry must be addressed or there is no limit on how often the company can use the section.

As far as this being a "timeout" that's all good, but I really don't believe we and/or the negotiating committee knows the score or how much time will be left in the game when the whistle blows.

Thanks to all for helping a contractual moron ( me) make the right choice.

2cylinderdriver

Great idea, I like the new thread idea. As far as helping you decide, the last thing I would do is listen to anyone on this website, telling you to vote yes or no.

I look at it this way, the MEC, who got to see more inside info than we will ever see, voted 10-2. If you want real info there is only one place to get it. Call your rep and attend or participate in any upcoming meetings to get your answers directly.

We have a pretty diverse MEC and I look forward to hearing more from the 2 who voted no, but it will always be weighed against the fact the majority, large at that, think this is a reasonable strategy. And even that should not drive your decision entirely, I personally voted against this current CBA even though it was unanimously approved by the MEC. What is best for you?

Good luck in your decision! We are all counting on you.

Underdog

The vote on the last FDA LOA was 11-1 in favor, perhaps you should ask EI (the dissenting vote) what he thinks of the current TA. He certainly knew more than the rest of the MEC last time around.

KnightFlyer

Can you be inversed into one of these 1 to 3 month FDA STVs?

FDXLAG

No that is impossible they will go senior. I think one of the many FDA LOA improvements we got (after the mec told us vote yes this is the best deal we will ever get) said that the 3 month STV was voluntary only.

Busboy

I understand the company's desire to not open the scheduling sections until the new FARs come out. And, I understand our Neg Comm. not wanting to wait 2 years, to negotiate back pay, or a signing bonus to make up for that lost time.

What I don't understand, is why NONE of the non Sec 25 items, that were so important to this crewforce, were not addressed in this TA. Not, one! Even 4A2b, which had to top the list, is not addressed satisfactorily. (I don't consider the safety programs as something we should need to bargain for) On the other side, the company got their FDA agreement. Important to them? Gosh, I don't know. They've only been talking about opening them for the past 15 years!

So, take yourself back 18 months, to the middle of 4A2b, and tell me you would vote for this.

MaydayMark

I "thought" JG said in the video that issue had been fixed? Anybody else hear that?

KnightFlyer

That's what I thought and heard, but couldn't confirm in the wording.

hypoxia

By ratifying this "new" TA, the company in essence has set a precedent or in other words, validated that retirement at age 60 is contractual and acceptable post Age 65 legislation. What do we have to potentially gain by keeping the retirement age at 60?

1. No loss of B fund contributions
2. Less penalty for retiring early ie: 3% a year.
3. A legal/contractual precedence for future negotiations to keep the retirement age at 60.

Just a thought!

drftddgr

I overlooked the age 60 retirement. That goes in the "good" column.

Was the size of the signing bonus in 2006 related to length of negotiations? I am still trying to understand the insignificant 1%. If the lump sum was 5% or more and all else the same I probably would tip towards yes.

if 4a2b was solid I could probably take all the rest as is.