Originally Posted by 1234 (Post 1198179)

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

Originally Posted by 1234 (Post 1198179)

or is the agreement null and void with a union representation change? I am not advocating this, just asking the question.

Thanks,

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1198190)

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.....

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1198190)

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.....

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1198194)

After 4 years and 7,000 posts, it had to happen eventually. :D

Carl

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1198197)

This post is so incredibly true... and a main reason why I'm so iffy on this whole thing. The wording is vague in many places and trusts the company who has knowingly gone around our poor wording very recently. Are we just going to throw our hands up again like with the RAH thing and say "well dang, we missed that one again... we'll get it next time!"

Let's be a bit more proactive this time and actually stress test this thing on worst case.

Originally Posted by 1234 (Post 1198203)

Any chance we can get someone (FTB??) to put together a spreadsheet outlining open issues or loopholes that need to be addressed in the contract (i.e. pilots coming with 717's, circumstance over which the company does not have control, Republic carvout)?

I am just thinking that it would be a great tool to have one document with all the items that are not good in the agreement.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1198178)

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.

Originally Posted by 1234 (Post 1198210)

I couldn't agree more. We have to get the word out to the majority of pilots though, regarding these poorly worded sections. There are a lot of pilots that are on the fence with regard to this TA and if they can be educated as to the current issues with the TA I am guessing that they would most likely vote no. That said, a lot of this language could easily be fixed prior to a vote on the TA. It would be unprecedented, but if the MEC said, "ok, we hear your concerns over some of the language and we are addressing it with the company right now" They could get the language cleaned up and I bet the TA would pass MEMRAT. That would take real leadership though.

Just my thoughts.

Originally Posted by 1234 (Post 1198210)

I couldn't agree more. We have to get the word out to the majority of pilots though, regarding these poorly worded sections. There are a lot of pilots that are on the fence with regard to this TA and if they can be educated as to the current issues with the TA I am guessing that they would most likely vote no. That said, a lot of this language could easily be fixed prior to a vote on the TA. It would be unprecedented, but if the MEC said, "ok, we hear your concerns over some of the language and we are addressing it with the company right now" They could get the language cleaned up and I bet the TA would pass MEMRAT. That would take real leadership though.

Just my thoughts.