|
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1891047)
Clamp is right on this. It's the majority of LEC reps that are refusing to accept what the negotiating committee (at the direction of certain MEC administrators) are trying to cram down.
I've read some confusion here and I think it's about terminology. The MEC is all of our reps led (in process) by the MEC chairman. The MEC administration is a different animal. The MEC administration includes some really bad actors like Harwood on the strategic planning committee, the negotiating Committe and other Committee members. The MEC administration is mostly made up of unelected bureaucrats who work at the pleasure of the MEC chairman. Sometimes you can get lucky and they're great guys, sometimes you can get unlucky like now with Harwood having so much influence on appointing the bureaucrats. In this latest incident, a majority of the MEC (our elected reps) are very concerned about their direction being ignored by the MEC administration (mostly unelected bureaucrats). That's a problem and Council 1 is highlighting it. That's why these latest posters like Professor, pilotstats, rube, Chuck Essential (which is really irritating given what a cool guy Check Essential is) and the others are here. They're here to rail against our elected reps keeping us informed. Very typical of an MEC administration using these guys to patrol social media to attempt message control. Bottom line is that this is good stuff. The MEC administration is desperately trying to get a 10-9 vote out to the members because they know memory rat will pass. The MEC is telling the MEC administration that ain't happening. So will the MEC administration sign a TA that is against the specific direction of the MEC like they did in C2012 and dare the MEC to vote it down? Or will this shot across the bow to the MEC administration make that administration go back to the table and explicitly follow MEC direction. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Carl "What is the motive for Harwood's and the unelected MEC administrations meddling in the negotiating process" |
Originally Posted by ImTumbleweed
(Post 1891009)
Then release the survey results from C2012.
What's the harm of releasing that? There is no harm in releasing that information. It's been outdated for years now.
Originally Posted by Professor
(Post 1891013)
Its a good question. I would ask your reps, I don't have an answer for that right now.
|
They wouldn't dare release the results as it would only serve to highlight the disconnect that existed between those that filled out a survey and what was actually negotiated. Furthermore it would fuel the DPA campaign. While I am NOT an ALPA fan we are getting to a point where North America needs unification against the ME carriers.
My .02 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
I think we're seeing the company's "constructive engagement" endgame.
They've been grooming these same MEC administrators for years. The free candy, the sleepovers, the tickle parties. It's all about to pay off. Management has recognized now as the time to cash in, and made a strategic decision to wring every last dime from Dalpa. Sure, after a crappy deal, the pilots might revolt and completely change Dalpa's composition (or even bargaining agents). But if the company can hold off our big gains now, it will be worth it for them to lose their special friends at Dalpa. This is is what the company has been waiting for. Time is our friend. We must slow down. If we blow this chance, management will have effectively broken our backs. Keep the pressure on our reps, and hopefully they will continue to keep pressure on the NC. And boot the bad actors Carl talked about. |
Originally Posted by TheManager
(Post 1891067)
Carl. Well explained. The only thing missing to put a bow on the whole package is:
"What is the motive for Harwood's and the unelected MEC administrations meddling in the negotiating process" Motive! Are they working for the pilots or are they working for the company? Or, do they have a different world view and belief system than me? IDK. |
Originally Posted by 300SMK
(Post 1891091)
They wouldn't dare release the results as it would only serve to highlight the disconnect that existed between those that filled out a survey and what was actually negotiated. Furthermore it would fuel the DPA campaign. While I am NOT an ALPA fan we are getting to a point where North America needs unification against the ME carriers.
My .02 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by 300SMK
(Post 1891091)
They wouldn't dare release the results as it would only serve to highlight the disconnect that existed between those that filled out a survey and what was actually negotiated. Furthermore it would fuel the DPA campaign. While I am NOT an ALPA fan we are getting to a point where North America needs unification against the ME carriers.
My .02 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Paid for by ME carriers. :D |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1891047)
Clamp is right on this. It's the majority of LEC reps that are refusing to accept what the negotiating committee (at the direction of certain MEC administrators) are trying to cram down.
I've read some confusion here and I think it's about terminology. The MEC is all of our reps led (in process) by the MEC chairman. The MEC administration is a different animal. The MEC administration includes some really bad actors like Harwood on the strategic planning committee, the negotiating Committe and other Committee members. The MEC administration is mostly made up of unelected bureaucrats who work at the pleasure of the MEC chairman. Sometimes you can get lucky and they're great guys, sometimes you can get unlucky like now with Harwood having so much influence on appointing the bureaucrats. In this latest incident, a majority of the MEC (our elected reps) are very concerned about their direction being ignored by the MEC administration (mostly unelected bureaucrats). That's a problem and Council 1 is highlighting it. That's why these latest posters like Professor, pilotstats, rube, Chuck Essential (which is really irritating given what a cool guy Check Essential is) and the others are here. They're here to rail against our elected reps keeping us informed. Very typical of an MEC administration using these guys to patrol social media to attempt message control. Bottom line is that this is good stuff. The MEC administration is desperately trying to get a 10-9 vote out to the members because they know memory rat will pass. The MEC is telling the MEC administration that ain't happening. So will the MEC administration sign a TA that is against the specific direction of the MEC like they did in C2012 and dare the MEC to vote it down? Or will this shot across the bow to the MEC administration make that administration go back to the table and explicitly follow MEC direction. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Carl Posters with arguments against DALPA have been consistent over the years, but the surge in pro-DALPA support is evident of an agenda. |
I just got forwarded the council 20 update. I read it like the council 1 update. There is some interesting between the lines stuff in there. I Strongly encourage any ATL based pilot to read this update. It is almost a pro/con letter somehow. It also provides a filter or lens through which a critical thinker might read council 44s updates.
I wonder if the ATL reps actually might come over to, or at least see, the view that the council 20 guys convey since they may be in the minority...what's the rush? What's the motive? |
First I am going to start by apologizing for an earlier post where I said the MSP FO rep was on the fence and leaning towards the side of concessions. I have been in contact with him and received a communication where he laid that to rest. Now add to that yesterday's Council 1 letter and I am confident that. My reps are doing their job for me.
Now before the professor and others jump on me let me give you a quick "anonymous" background. I am a DALPA supporter a trust but verify type of guy. I voted yes on C2012 after a long discussion with. The LEC 1 FO rep who voted no. Carl has even accused me of being a DALPA lackey (or similiar). I generally believe DALPA has our best interest at heart. c2015 in challenging that belief. There are two distinct groups forming the MEC right now those who want a quick contract even if it means a few extra gives (the old guard) and those that want to craft a better deal even if it doesn't get down by JAN 1. I have been told by someone closer to the MEC than me that the two basic groups are split 8-8 and there are three swing votes. The swing votes I have been told are the SEA FO rep, the ATL training council rep, and the ATL FO rep DN. Now I only know what i was told and perhaps I am wrong however I do know there are people on this board close to DN. Talk to him implore him to stick up for a contract that doesn't sell more 76 seat jets, pull LCA trips from FOs, and cut our sick leave. This needs to be a historic contract for all of us. Take 5 minutes away from the forums today and send your rep an email or give them a call. If you live. In MSP there is an LEC meeting Monday, go to it. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:33 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands