Agree! This isn't north vs south as some are turning this into! For someone who is always preaching unity...jeez! This was a failure of the MEC and only undone by our reps through mass protest. I think split duty has been decided. We overwhelmingly don't want them! I think that just played out without doubt. No Education needed as Bar points out in a later post. BTW, the language that has opened the door was just negotiated. A small opening but language that should have stayed slammed shut.

The good news is, this whole process negated one of DALPA's FUD tactics from C12: "there won't be a better deal. This is the best we can do."

That won't fly for C15.

I think this TA process has shown very clearly that there is an upside to sending back a questionable product.

Please explain how the fact that this was a joint MEC direction is N v S?

How is my opinion that C20's resolution, back when it was made, isn't a bad idea and might even be a good idea, N/S?

KW for whatever reason made the N/S distinction before anyone else was even thinking that. I asked, why would he do that?

Who (from the N) is calling for the members of South Councils to recall their reps? Who is responding that cross council calls for recall are improper on on the fact that both substantive questions (direction and ratification) were unanimous?

What is it with you and Carl and the false accusations? :mad:

No, they agreed to it because they had a gun to their heads. That is hardly an agreement. But your comment about that is deflection. The point is that they rejected the "first offer", like you advocate doing, and got their heads handed to them (by an unscrupulous SWAPA and SWA management team.) M-B is dead/irrelevant. SWA created the end around. We could do that with anybody we merge with going forward. I'm not a lawyer nor in a HI Xpress, and I could shoot it (M-B) full of holes.

This "questionable product" had really only one bad apple in it. The rest is pretty damned good. So what I want to know is if this had not had the SDPs in it, would you still need to satisfy your blood lust by rejecting the offer? I think you would, because you just want to fight, and that is not using your big brain.

Your comment about C15 clearly demonstrates that. You have already rejected the TA for C15 and we haven't even started negotiations on it yet. Sad really that you have so little faith in the process.

Good point.

After these last few days, unfortunately I think Bar has lost all credibility when he preaches "unity."

Please explain how the fact that this was a joint MEC direction is N v S?

How is my opinion that C20's resolution, back when it was made, isn't a bad idea and might even be a good idea, N/S?

KW for whatever reason made the N/S distinction before anyone else was even thinking that. I asked, why would he do that?

Who (from the N) is calling for the members of South Councils to recall their reps? Who is responding that cross council calls for recall are improper on on the fact that both substantive questions (direction and ratification) were unanimous?

What is it with you and Carl and the false accusations? :mad:

Or is this just DPA spin? Are lies OK if you are just the guy who repeats them?

Yes, I was referring to the initial TA that contained the SDPs.

I'm mostly fine with the TA as it passed, with the exception that it should have been given a memory rat.

I don't think I would have much to gripe about the original TA if it didn't include SDPs. But that's neither here nor there. The SDP aspect has been beaten to death, and I agree with pretty much everything your wrote in opposition to them.

My point was simply that, in the future, it won't will work for DALPA (or even RA) to say "there isn't a better deal available".

I'm confused about this "blood lust" you speak of. No need for you to be a drama queen. I'm desperately hoping C15 is everything it should be in this insanely positive negotiating climate.

Why was memrat necessary? Would it change anything? This was a good deal all the way around except for the rotten apple that was culled. It would have been a total waste of time, money and resource. If you want the pilots to be polled, that would be OK I guess, although I don't think it is worthwhile to do so....

And again, it is interesting to me that you demonstrate such cynicism toward those representing you in the negotiating arena. They have access to more the data and information than you and I will ever have and are negotiating our contract based on that information. Yet somehow, you believe that you can read a synopsis (which is after all what the TA is) and draw an unfettered, absolute conclusion that the negotiators left money on the table. Sometimes there is the benefit of hindsight or a time factor that takes place after the negotiations have concluded that might strengthen an argument one way or the other, but what I am trying to understand from the "just say no to anything" crowd is the lack of ANY trust in the process prior to your receiving a TA. You and Carl and the others in that crowd impress me as having zero confidence in the capabilities of those negotiators to extract the best deal they can. Is it that you believe they don't have to live under the contract? It makes no sense to me other than blood lust. You just want to fight... nothing else makes any sense.

And as to being a drama queen, you need to look in a mirror, son.

OK ... so I just learned C20's "Illegal" resolution actually did fail at the MEC level because of the pending NPRM on what became FAR 117. So the resolution was not accepted by the MEC.

But some MEC members keep a notebook of what they think are good ideas that should be revisited later. Many of these are consensus issues, like door pay, which has been around for at least 4 years now, but we've not gotten it yet. When does a good idea die? When should it die if not acted on, superseded by regulatory events or if we just were not able to negotiate it this round?

So does it change anything that C20's resolution failed?


( and I will correct information that I post which, upon further research turns out to have been incorrect )