A300_Driver

Missed all but the last 10 minutes or so...
Any big revelations?
Any discussion on the 4A2B section of the TA?
Hopefully they'll post it on the website soon,
but patience isn't one of my strengths...

PurpleTail

Nothing to enlightening today but it was good to here from the MEC. 4A2b was discussed briefly only to the extent that the MEC admitted that this TA fix is incomplete and that they have NOT formulated a final resolution themselves.

I didn't get the 'hard sell' feeling I thought they would deliver today but the MEC did not abandoned the 'this IS really the best we can do' message. The FDA's were discussed some but a couple of the questions were outside the realm of the MEC...meaning some 'what if' scenario's were asked that the committee had to defer.

Accepted fares issue was brought up and basically the MEC said the company is happy with the way it is and it takes two to engage the topic. I interpreted that as the MEC saying 'Are hands are tied and we can't do anything about it'. I say BS! How about we vote NO and revisit the accepted fares issue properly instead of waiting another 3-4 years for a fix.

Is 3% all we can get was asked. Response was 'If this was a full contract TA then we think we could do better'. Well as far as a mediator is concerned this IS a full TA! Just because we are calling it a 'Hybrid' TA doesn't make it any different than a FULL TA. Very slippery slope boys and girls.....how do the think the company would play it?!?! 4% is questionable, 5% is more realistic and certainly doable at DOS with a 3.5 second year extension.

I am not a single issue voter and this TA is, ONCE AGAIN, written very loosely with a lot of gray areas. When are we going to learn? EVER?

Do everyone a favor and VOTE NO. Send this TA back to be cleaned up, the right way, the first time!

***>>> Disclaimer --- these were my interpretations today. If you feel differently please feel free to discuss. Thanks

DLax85

I am very appreciative of the MEC & NC for really stepping up and using multiple technologies to get the word out and use this type of interactive webcast to allow pilots to participate from remote locations.

They should be commended!!!

With that said, I felt the presentation was of nuetral value. Nothing really new, if you've read the TA thoroughly and listened to previous union videos.

The panel knew they would face some tough questions and seemed prepared, but were very cautious in many of their responses.

They ket the webcast moving for the full hour, but not all the questions submitted were presented to the panel for response.

I believe that was because they ran out of time.

Hopefully, those questions will be addressed during the next webcast and an archive of the webcasts will be available for all to view.

It would be interesting to know how many pilots accessed the site to watch.

I am pretty sure that's something the technology tracks.

Overnitefr8

Are you saying they purposely didn't answer some questions? I only say that because I submitted a question near the very end and it was asked almost immediately. I would have assumed they would have presented the questions in the order they were submitted. Of course my question was the most important one, so they felt it was necessary to present it.

DLax85

No, I don't think/hope so.

The moderator may have had more questions than they could ask within the 1 hr and therefore chose to ask the panel as many questions from as many different pilots as possible.

Once again, I would like to thank the MEC & NC for making such webcasts possible.

The folks there are working very hard ---- though I disagree with many aspects of this TA.

There is room for improvement that would make this TA acceptable. No need for anyone to play brinksmanship.

NightBusDriver

Agreed. Now let's hope the line pilot membership works hard too, and VOTES!

I don't care HOW anyone else votes, as long as he/she gets informed, makes an individual decision, then actually participates by voting!!