If you had been paying attention to the ongoing negotiating committee updates, you'd recall that section 18 had been TA'ed before the 11 Oct 2010 NC update, WAY before the concept of a "bridge" TA ever came up. This reflects the concept that the NC and the company chose to clear away the less contentious issues first, and is not a reflection on the relative importance the MEC places on the various sections. Again, not every lawn is a grassy knoll.

I voted NO.

Almost everything that is in Section 18 directly relates to the new safety programs.

5 fleets, 2 programs (ASAP and FOQA) = up to 10 bodies if the occasion arises that they all have to work on the same days.

I've heard and read much consternation over the 870 hours in 18.C.1. In fact, if the safety programs get canceled by ALPA (18.C.2), 798 of the 870 hours disappear.

Of the stuff to hate about the TA, this isn't it. Including it as a negative weakens one's arguments against the TA.

I concur with MX.

It's not so much what is in the TA that we should be questioning and demanding better verbiage, but rather what is missing from it. This issue is nothing but a smoke screen.

We are in one of those times in our career that allows us an opportunity to fix the road we are on. To fix pot holes like accepted fares, Reserve transparency, utilization and minimum pay per day, deviation issues, pairing construction and disputes. To name a few.

Issues like 4A2B should be road closures! To have let this issue slip into obscurity and cover it up in just two short pages at the back of the book is shocking. Forget getting our money back, I have come to accept that reality. However, if the clause must stay we need some additional real protections from its abuse should the company "really" need it. Such as NO draft or volunteer and a monthly cap of 68/85 CH. If things get so bad that 4A2B needs to be invoked, these should not be bitter pills to swallow.

As for the money? I think we are going to lose the value of the 3% in QOL and system form changes once the combination of the FDAs and the NPRM kick in. I don't have a good number to seek to be quite honest. I think we will all benefit more from a better worded contract than we will by getting to keep the change off the sleep room floor.

I'm tired of hearing "We'll fix it in the next contract". Folks - this is the next contract.
Nakazawa

Hear! Hear!

Is anyone going to publish the latest council 22 letter?

I can't believe the MEC did!!

I'm sure that management appreciates knowing that our union leaders think negotiations will go on for 2-5 years, once our CBA becomes amendable again, before the NMB will even think of releasing us.

After reading his letter...I'm more concerned than ever, about our union.

yes, all this transparency and honesty backed up with credible sources. What the heck, we should be worried.:rolleyes:

I want rumors, innuendo and outright lying. That is what a real Union is all about I guess. Start the recall process now! I assume you will, Busboy, if you are really that concerned.

Okay, if you want to go there. Transparency and honesty? We still don't know what part of the BLK 5 rep's letter was not factually correct, do we? We just know that the MEC feels they didn't do anything illegal by not publishing it.

The new BLK 2 rep's letter also tells us that the minutes of the MEC meeting show that the voting reps "clearly supported" the TA. Well, based on the letter from the old BLK 2 rep, that actually did vote for it... I wouldn't go as far as to say that he CLEARLY endorsed this TA. His own letter stated that he endorsed sending it to the members to vote on.

Our NC chair stated in his video(@24:30+/-), that "we like the political environment that we are bargaining in, right now". And then goes on to talk about the NMB, and how in the past 2 years they have processed some difficult cases...

Now, the new Block 2 rep's first communication tells us how the NMB's plan could take us 5 years of negotiating, to get a new CBA. Are we to assume that our NC thinks the possibility of bargaining for 5 years, is good? Even the supposed minimum of 2 years, could take us out of the good "political environment" we like, depending on the elections.

Something doesn't add up. I'm not sure what the BLK 2 rep was trying to accomplish, with his comm. But, I'm sure the company enjoys knowing that our union leaders think we will have to negotiate for 2-5 years, in this good political environment.

Not a good start for our new BLK rep, in my eyes. I'm not saying he's dishonest or not trying to be transparent...Quite the contrary, I'm sure he's honest. And, possibly transparent to a fault.

But regardless of all that, this shouldn't be about him, or any BLK rep. The TA should be voted on for it's own merits. Are we gaining more than we are giving away? I don't think so.