Once again you're not listening or comprehending. No surprise there.

Carl

I think it's stuff like this where you lose people Carl. I don't believe the vast majority honestly thinks that the negotiators just took what was handed to them across the table with no effort to maximize our return. That would be an exaggeration for effect by trying to paint something in the extreme. I also recall hearing that the company had a plan B and it was the MEC's belief that plan B would not garner us the same or better improvements to our PWA, like the minimum mainline block hour ratios associated with the small jet scope, based on the information they had.

While one might have wanted more (or a lot more for that matter), it doesn't mean the negotiators surrendered. I'm of the opinion they got what they thought they could get. I've never had the impression that they would stop trying to get more if they thought there was a calculated chance of a successful outcome for the pilot group. I don't view them as some miscreants trying to do me harm. I view them as my fellow pilots, with the help of professionals, trying the best they can to get the most they can for all of us. That's just my opinion.

Unfortunately, stuff like this on this forum usually seems to go on and on and on and on and on.

I was reading out our contract history. If ALPA has financial experts, why didn't ALPA know that a bankruptcy was coming and there was nothing we could do about it? Painful reading about taking huge pay cuts, then going bankrupt and having to negotiate more cuts. To me our financial experts should have been able to tell is that the numbers din't work and bankruptcy was inevitable. I am guessing that we as a whole acted on emotion and fear of losing the pension. This was a major failure of ALPA. This was a time where we needed true leadership to keep us from acting on emotion, and I feel ALPA failed miserably. It resulted in deeper cuts than were necessary and a new lower standard for us IMHO. Relaxing the rj scope was another major failure during this time.

Have you previously received something from your MEC to vote on that had a recommendation of a "no" vote from the NC and the MEC during the course of your career?

You are not alone in that thinking. Interestingly enough, the Master Chairman that ushered in the concessions to "avoid bankruptcy" got replaced when we got to bankruptcy.

Yeah you're right. I wasn't listening. I'd rather listen to a little Daid Gilmour... It's the same old bull dung that you make up on the fly to garner sympathy for your agenda. ALPA wronged you somehow, and it's your goal to send them to the scrap heap. Of course, now that you have yours and won't be affected by the repercussions.

Off the top of my head, I can't recall you ever agreeing with me. So when you try to counsel me on how I might be losing people, I don't think you have an accurate picture of who I've won or lost.

If there was any real negotiations, it couldn't have been much. The time was so short and threats by management were so many.

It was not the MEC's belief. It was the NC's belief and that of certain MEC administrators, but not the MEC. Our MEC was put in a no-win situation by the NC and certain administrators.

How about you? Might you have wanted more?

If that was true, those negotiators would still be here along with those administrators. They're all gone now and they're gone as a result of their actions. They don't get to decide whether there's a calculated chance of a greater outcome by pushing for more. The MEC gets to make that decision. That didn't happen. The NC signed the TA when they knew it specifically did not meet the pilot's survey and gave up profit sharing which the MEC prohibited them from doing.

I don't view them as miscreants either.

My opinion is the opposite. Others agree with me...that's why those folks are no longer serving.

You seem to be lamenting legitimate debate on this forum. Why?

Carl

This eggzactly!

If we had such a great E & FA, they should have easily been able to tell us that with our debt load, bankruptcy avoidance/pension saving was impossible. I'm not a financial guy at all, but I voted no because even I could figure out the aforementioned avoidance/saving was impossible.

Further, our legal system is based on precedent. I doubt that there is any case law where a corporation was allowed to take 32% plus pensions from the employees thru the bankruptcy process.

Yes, twice in my career that I recall. Two NO vote recommendations and one "no recommendation" by the MEC.

Carl

In fairness to ALPA's financial folks, it would have been difficult to determine whether managements would have pulled the bankruptcy trigger. In the case of the old Delta, some analysts at the time said they were in such bad shape that Delta was days away from liquidation. In the case of NWA, some analysts called it a contrived bankruptcy to freeze pensions and extract concessions when NWA was not even close to being insolvent.

ALPA financial folks likely had an accurate picture of each airline's financial health, but no accurate guess as to who would pull the bankruptcy trigger.

That is 100% true. Now we're relaxing top end scope.

If ALPA ultimately fails, agreeing to the slow destruction of scope language will be the reason.

Carl