Originally Posted by HumptyDumpty

We need a sticky cause this is going to be a very long and interesting thread.

Originally Posted by Gunter

Throwing around words like ridiculous and fool must strengthen your argument in some fashion.

Without work rule changes from the Feds to compare them to, proposed work rule changes from us count against the total the other side is willing to offer. If the same work rules end up changed by the Feds to what we like we would have spent that money, or negotiating capital, for nothing. I think that is the crux of the argument.

There is a dance during negotiations. You can ask for more and see what happens but you have to speak a language they understand and use. They cost out everything we ask for. At this particular time it causes problems and counts against us that Federal work rule changes are just around the corner but not here yet.

The reason they will attach cost to it is because competitors might not have to follow the same rules we negotiate if they don't end up federally mandated.

Accepted fares is in the scheduling section. To demand an accepted fares solution means everything within that section would be addressed.

Originally Posted by FDXLAG

So it is your contention that "fix" to 4A2b in this "TA" required a rewrite of all of Section 4? I'll have to reread section 4 for the changes.

Originally Posted by MaxKts

Math Question:

How much decrease in monthly BLG does it take to negate our 3% pay raise?

Originally Posted by Brad4est

As an interested observer, I have noticed a disturbing trend. Many of the posters on this subject appear to be saying that since the vote did not go the way "they" wanted, that means we have no unity.

In other words, according to them we are only united if we agree with their viewpoint. I personally find that very sad.

The idea of unity is that no matter how the vote came out, how you wanted or not, you now stand behind the majority and carry on, not try to undermine everything. It is perfectly acceptable to voice your disappointment with the results, but to then say everyone else has no unity or is stupid, is just wrong.

IMHO, obviously.

BTW, my response is the same no matter how I personally voted.

Originally Posted by finedavefine

4A2B,

Well thought out post. Very nice. I agree with all you've said, except your comment about the Boston Red Socks. I mean, come on man!

Originally Posted by Gunter

...My understanding is the company nixed any fix to accepted fares outside of a rewrite of the section. ....

Originally Posted by Gunter

I can understand and respect a skeptical attitude on how much of a pay raise we got. I wish it was more too.

But I can't understand an assumption we would have come to a better agreement before Aug 2011 when new rest rules are due to come out. Could this date be extended? Not sure but I wouldn't be surprised. The last mile is the hardest and would have taken a long fight. After that date, airlines will have 2 years to implement. Fat chance for NMB help during that time. Think about it, the government provides a 2 year grace period and labor wants to force an earlier implementation. Really? If you open some work rule changes you open the whole section.

The TA is a 1 or 2 year agreement starting March 2011. If they don't come to the table to talk I can't see it being more than a 1 year agreement. That's good timing as the new rest rules would have been fully digested by then.

But I don't think that's the fundamental argument here. Some folks don't like the idea of a European domicile at all and wanted to delay it as long as possible for fear of the future. Anything less is "anti-unity", "anti-pilot", "we got hosed again" or whatever else you're hearing right now.

The previous ALPA leadership gave up HKG and Europe very cheaply but the savings weren't enough to get the company to pull the trigger on Europe. HKG MD11 could have happened at any time without the TA but didn't.

We all need to take a deep breath....