But that's not the question now is it slowplay. The question is, does our TA allow it to happen? Whether it meets your "logic" test is immaterial. Your logic test didn't save us from the RAH holding company loophole in the first place now did it.

Carl

 

If I recall correctly, Trans States ordered 100 Mitsubishi RJ's last year with nobody to operate them for. I wonder if this is in play here somehow. They have something like a 1800nm range too. Anyone know if these are still on order?

here's the link: http://www.mrj-japan.com/press_relea...ws_110201.html

 

And every other option cost them more and more with additional risk. Good luck explaining it to the board and shareholders. I'll wait.

Excellent.

The second this pilot group votes this TA down.

100% guaranteed. The company even knows it...and so do you.

Already have. Right here on the interwebs that lasts forever. Next!

Carl

 

Given the words used by a few of the Reps, it seems that the reps would have prefered to provide direction, and not be notified of things like pay rates when they were presented with a TA.

When you are below the direction in an area or out of the direction box from the Reps, I have always seen it as standard practice to go back to the bosses; the reps, and see if the TA can be signed, we need to keep talking, or absent an agreement with the new direction on acomprehensive package, a TA will not be reached.

It falls along the words in the chairman's letter. The stuff about no sacrificing the product for expediency. Its also what I took out of many of their letters as their reasoning for voting no. The TA failed to reach the valuation of their direction or their pilots.

Also if this is the case in DTW, where TT admits that their pilots asked for lower money and valuation, What does it say about other bases that voted yes on the deal? Did they follow the will of their pilots? Did they provide direction that matched the survey? Were they OK when the TA(product) came back below the acceptable level? Honest questions that need to be asked. No more no less.

 

Thanks for the answer. One more question:

After we ratify a PWA, what are the ramifications of voting for different representation and removing ALPA. Would we continue to keep the exact same contract and working rules or is the agreement null and void with a union representation change? I am not advocating this, just asking the question.

Thanks,

 

No, the CBA or PWA in place stays in place until a new one can be negotiated.

 

Seriously folks, ax yourself this question: If the company's intention was to give us a take it or leave it TA, then try to jam the bat up our a$$ by making each one worse if we say NO, why wouldn't they have waited to do that until 36 months from now? You'd get to show those idiot pilots who the real boss is, and save on any pay raises for 3 more years. Why would they do this?

The answer is so obvious. THEY can't wait 36 months. Now that we know from slowplay that the opportunity was for them to get out of our CURRENT contract so they can do something about the 50 seat RJ situation that is killilng them, who has the NEED to do this as quickly as possible? Thus who has the leverage?

Please read the DTW LEC Chariman's letter where he clearly states that the timelines and deadlines were clearly artificial and set by the company. It all adds up to NEEDS for the company and LEVERAGE for us. I absolutely promise that if you vote YES on this, you'll feel like a Bernie Madoff victim in short order.

Take it from an old fart, I've seen this movie before.

Carl

 

Now that's funny right there.

Carl

 

The PWA continues to be in force, regardless of a change in bargaining agents.

 

Crud, I agree with you again Carl.

Slow, its not a question of what they will do?, The question is; Can they do it? That is the question every lawyer asks; Can I get around this language legally?

Assuming that they will do the right thing may lead us in to trouble at a later date. It goes along the lines of the DCI compliance out clause. Its not just force majure but anything out of their control. This pharase is not defined in section 2 either. Makes me scratch my head and wonder why it is so vague. I want a great contact, but it needs to be vetted line by line. We got nailed by section 1 language that was not well worded in the past, going forward it may effect our relationship with the company and investor commmunity.

Where we need vague language we have defined language like the "proft/loss" definition, and where we need tighter language its vague.

It falls under the dupe me once shame on you, dupe me twice shame on me phrase.....