Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1703511)

Thanks for the emotional response, it really helps your case.

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1703511)

I was simply referencing how the process is conducted per the C&BL and MEC Policy Manual. That same C&BL and Policy Manual process brought you the C2K, LOA46, LOA 19, LOA 51, C1991, c1996, etc. some were good, some weren't; was it a lack of ethics and common sense then too?

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1703511)

Did we abandon our reps if they weren't the specific one you voted for?

The NWA pilots would not have been successful in 1998 unless they backed their reps 100%, whether they voted for them or not.

Unity isn't an item of convenience. It's a fundamental part of being in a union member. I hope you come to that realization some day.

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1702610)

So the MEC elected an MEC Chairman and an NC. So they then don't give them the authority to make a deal?

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1702610)

Their JOB is to negotiate a deal.

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1702610)

Then, the MEC votes 14-5 (16-5 incl MEM that was closed less than 30 days earlier) to approve it. After that the pilot group votes nearly 2:1 in favor....

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1702610)

So tell me again how (maybe 4) rogue members were able to pull off a deal that would fool the MEC, AND the entire 12,000 member pilot group AND be less acceptable than they would all have to go live under afterward?

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1702610)

You must have a very low opinion of the intellect of the NC, MEC, and entire membership. Thankfully your view isn't reality or a majority view of the collective pilot group.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1702652)

I hope you understand that the contract survey is used to decide what order to prioritize contract improvements. It's not really a tool to set dollar values. If used as such we would never reach a contract agreement that was not considered rogue. It's a pilot wish list that has to be tempered with reality.

Originally Posted by Alan Shore (Post 1702932)

While I understand you to be correct in saying that the C2012 TA did not meet the direction of the MEC, I must disagree with the assertion that they did not follow the survey. As I understand it, the survey was broken into three sections -- demographics, specifics, and priorities.

Originally Posted by Alan Shore (Post 1702932)

In the specifics section, we provided our input on various aspects of the contract in isolation -- what should our pay rates be, how much vacation should we get, etc. In the priorities section, we then ranked each of those specific issues as to their importance relative to each other.

Originally Posted by Alan Shore (Post 1702932)

It has been explained to me that the priorities section is used to determine where to place emphasis in the event that not all of our specific desires can be met. At the C2012 roadshow, the NC stated that, while they were unable to achieve all of our specific desires, e.g., pay, they did closely follow our desired priorities in determining where to "cut back."

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1702962)

Are minimum acceptable pay increases minimums at all costs?

Originally Posted by DALMD88FO (Post 1703169)

Shiz,

I don't know if out maneuvered would be the correct wording, but if I remember my history correctly, the reason it took 7 days was because it wasn't passing on it's own merit so they had some serious discussion about what if we don't pass it. Basically they beat up on the reps long enough until they said ok we get it...it's the best you think we can do although it didn't meet our parameters. This was exactly how it was explained to me from my rep.

Originally Posted by DALMD88FO (Post 1703169)

I really wish they would bring back the old pro and con papers. Believe it our not we do have a good many pilots that just vote the way their reps say they should vote. Call it apathy or just too trusting.

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1703435)

There is nothing in the C&BL or the Policy Manual that requires the contract survey to be the determining factor for a TA.

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1703435)

Your Reps are entrusted to set the direction and approve or send back any proposed TA.

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1703435)

Vote carefully...

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver (Post 1703521)

Yeah, if it doesn't agree with what you think then it MUST be emotional. :rolleyes: That trick is getting old, Shiz, and I don't think anyone who is objective is buying it.



Not necessarily. We're in very uncharted territory now. Never before in the history of our profession had we taken such a massive concessionary hit as what we took just prior to and during bankruptcy. We're talking about recovering from that... i.e. restoration. And after 10 years we're nowhere even remotely close, with no apparent objective or plan to accomplish it.

And the quote of mine that you are addressing talked about how our negotiating committee and MEC chairman went rogue and substituted what they thought best for what the pilot group thought best as stated in the survey and through other input. Then they put together an epic marketing and fear campaign to get enough votes to sell the thing to at least 51%. In my book, that is lacking from an ethical standpoint. And accepting such a dramatically lower standard for compensation for our profession is IMO lacking from a common sense standpoint.


Not likely. I agree that unity is important. But you're never going to unify a large percentage (about 40% it seems?) around the concept of bankruptcy as a reset. DALPA will not get my support as long as they're hawking that kind of crap. You can call it "emotional" all you want, but that is my measured opinion. Start pursuing restoration as your objective and you'll have more unity than you know what to do with!

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1703443)

That speaks volumes, and it clears up all the questions about your motivation that I had in the previous post...

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1703443)

Good luck in your quest. Be sure to sign your card, and let us all know when the vote will be.

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1703465)

The "right" problem is a moving target. For you and me it's money.

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1703465)

For the newhires it's bottom end scope.

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1703465)

For the old guys it's retirement.

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1703465)

Can't wait to read your retort to this.... although I am sure I can write it for you and pretty much hit all your talking points.