Again, you asked where you were wrong or misleading. It is my contention that stating that the Union DECIDED that work rule would have to wait for 2 years or that the MEC DECIDED that 3% is enough to buy enough yes votes or that the MEC DECIDED that a hard sell is required are misleading because I have yet to read anything that says the MEC DECIDED about those statements. I am glad that you have now stated that you were making assumptions. I am not trying to refute your assumptions, only that they are not facts. If we want to know what the MEC and NC thinks, we need to attend the road shows and ask.

 

Would you prefer the MEC decided to accept. Hows that matlock?

 

If you are removing the "to buy votes" and the "it would take until Aug 2013" and the "decided to hard sell," great Barney Fife.

 

Hows this Andy: the Mec decided that 3% was enough to sell this LOA that they previously decided could not stand alone (in other words buy votes). That 3% will give us till March 2012 to decide what work rules (that we will know in Aug 2011) will cost us. If we want we can take another 3% to get us till March 2013 (in case 8 months is not enough to develop a strategy). In the meantime the MEC has scheduled numerous roadshows and big videos to tell us its a bridge and we will worry about 4A2b and accepted fares sometime in the future. But it is not as hard as sell as the last time. Although I would like to point out the MEC ops tempo has decidely slowed since the hard sell jokes started flying.

 

There is a very fine line in this business if "selling", so far they have made it clear that ALPA is providing every opportunity for people to get honest, straight forward answers. This includes opinions, it has too, we do not have the video or transcript of what they see.

The selling part, to me, would be what we saw last time. "if you don't take this deal, Irish pilots will be taking our flights. or other idle threats" I have not seen any ALPA official types claiming the world will come to an end if you do not vote this in. If they were to "undersell" it that would be a problem too, not providing people with enough info or opportunity is just as bad (actually worse) than too much. Seems like the MEC is very aware of the concerns on the line. I appreciate their efforts to provide the ying and the yang opinions as well.

 

That's better, but I see it as the MEC and NC presented us with the sections that had already been TA'd and continued the 3% yearly pay increases from our amendable contract to get us to a realistic point were the MEC and NC had time to cost the new rules and develop a negotiating strategy based on the changes. Then they continue with talks based on these changes and hopefully have a new TA by the middle of 2012. As far as leverage goes, I believe you said that our real leverage lies with CGN. If the company opened CGN under our current Section 6, which does not include tax equalization, what percentage of each seat do you think would be filled?

Thanks,
Andy (also known as Matlock later in life)

After 2012, the world ends, so it's moot anyway.

 

I have no idea, maybe 50% but I think that is good as it would require lots of SIBA. But the question is would the company open cgn and allow the pilots to work not under the RLA but under German labor laws? I do think you would be surprised as some jr guys might do ok without tax equalization.

You know My Sen, Landreiu from LA, was a no vote on obamacare until they came up with 30 million. You probably dont think they bought her vote either.

 

I think that the left seat would fill at 100% and the right seat would fill at 75%. I also think that the company has a pretty good idea of how the seats would fill. As far as the RLA vs. German labor law, I think that has already been worked out between the German gov. and the company. Our current Sect 6 says any FDA pilot is domiciled in MEM. So why is there an agreement that the pilot who fills an FDA must sign saying he/she must work under U.S. labor laws? I think it is to add that extra layer of security for the company. They would want that doc to take to an arbitrator or judge if they think a group is acting outside the RLA. Just my opinion. I do think the vote will be interesting. I still haven't decided, I just like to see both sides of the debate.

 

The standing bid option is already there for the EUR 757, and considering how much collective will power this crew force has, I would bet that the company has a VERY good idea of how the 757 seats would fill in CGN.

Both seats are probably already filled (in the system) without a bid or a new LOA.

 

OK well I change my vote to 3% in the left seat and 1% in the right seat. Again speculation. So you say without a loa they will have to pay German and American taxes but everyone will charge over there. I say Got war mit. An 8 year WB Capt would probably take home 8 year FO pay (under your dual tax claim) and it will only get worse as more and more tax cuts for the "rich" are eliminate, but not my problem.

Again it comes down to leverage you say it aint much I say it is all we have. Alls that we do know is the MEC and the company agreed to this loa a long time ago. However the MEC recognized that we had some leverage and demanded changes. Not the right ones IMHO and not enough. But we have leverage and we used it.