![]() |
|
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1489168)
I don't think the 100% argument is a good one. They won't do that, obviously. Losing the codeshare is some leverage... it's not great, but it's some. Think about a 15% pulldown in the pacific, though. That's massive cascading displacements running down our seniority list.
IOW, if you decide to exercise the leverage now, and the codeshares are dropped, NRT can go down 100% if the company finds it advantageous. What's actually amazing to me is how poor the legacy NRT agreement is. Link frequencies to codeshares, with no other guarantees? Fail. |
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 1489150)
By the way, this assumes the people with no integrity that leaked this information are correct. I don't know what's in this deal other than these rumors.
I think it is wrong for our MEC to conduct such important business in secret. They claim to be open and democratic and seeking our input - until it actually counts. The administration's attempt to present the rank and file with yet another fait accompli LOA that has already been debated and ratified before any line pilot has been allowed to see it is an insult to the members they say they are serving. |
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 1489181)
I am grateful to the leaker. Even if the info was incomplete. At least he or she tried to tell the pilots what was about to happen to our scope clause.
I'm thinking more like a weasel. You leak selectively, parts that are true, but often out of context, and obviously just the bad parts. then you squeal the entire time, and you say you voted against it, and that makes you a hero? |
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 1489161)
What I wonder is this: say the MEC is facing a quasi-turd sandwich, and would in fact send the negotiators back in, nice and quiet, and get something a little better, like say an additional 1.5%, 1%, 1%, 1%. No deal is final until signed by the MEC, but no sweetener might be available after a leak. If I was on the company's side, I'd close the shop as soon as the leak occurs.
You have a good point but this give and take has presumably already occurred. Negotiations are now over. The MEC sent out an Alert that we have a new LOA and scheduled a meeting to vote on ratification. At that point I'd like to know what's in it. I agree it shouldn't come from a leak. The MEC should put it out. But obviously they decided not to. |
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 1489189)
Sink-
You have a good point but this give and take has presumably already occurred. Negotiations are now over. The MEC sent out an Alert that we have a new LOA and scheduled a meeting to vote on ratification. At that point I'd like to know about it. The only exception might be my theory about whether any fine-tuning can occur after the MEC is considering a TA or LOA. I've asked before, and I've been told that negotiators wouldn't get sent back in. I don't believe this to be true. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1489179)
Wife is making me watch some stupid award show ... still think the highlight was ...
Peyton Manning is always fun to watch. |
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 1489188)
You're kidding, right? You think these things are leaked for the benefit of the group? You're thinking Clark Kent, going to phone booths to change AND make a call to save the world?
I'm thinking more like a weasel. You leak selectively, parts that are true, but often out of context, and obviously just the bad parts. then you squeal the entire time, and you say you voted against it, and that makes you a hero? It is a shame that political siding or infighting has any effect in ongoing union work. |
Right over my head on the Obamacare, Scambo.
??? |
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 1489204)
Right over my head on the Obamacare, Scambo.
??? |
OK, I see what you mean. That might be different. You're talking about an act that wasn't really leaked all that much... to the people voting on it.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:16 AM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands