Hawaii50

Why bother to collect it at all then? It's really the only reference point they have on what the group wants/expects. There will always be the squeaky wheels but the mainstream submits their survey and expects that to speak for them with the collective result being the goal the negotiations work toward.

zoomiezombie

Bring out the Tucker

Grumble

Maybe Tim Clark would like to play by the same labor laws instead of withholding pay from pilots who have no Union or labor laws for protection. Allow flight attendants to fly past age 27. Let employees unionize, if things are so great he shouldn't need to. The human rights violations of these countries are well documented. These airlines are nothing more than ego driven status symbols of the royal families that own them.

80ktsClamp

The unionization thing is correct, but EK absolutely has FAs over the age of 27 (wayyyy over).

TheManager

Yeah?

Like what?

Give examples, not buying it. Particularly the backgrounds.

Explain exactly how those definitely different backgrounds and demographics are so different at particular bases as to produce completely different priorities from one base to another.

ERflyer

The survey is a data point of wants. Not necessarily what one can get, but what one wants.

Example: I am due for a raise and I have meeting with my boss. I want x, y and z as well as a 40% raise. I get x and y and 25% after our negotiation. After the negotiation I can quit (in our case vote no - or I suppose some could quit) or accept the deal (vote yes).

Just the real world.

Purple Drank

Confirmed from someone in the room: Donatelli sent one of the executive admins to "monitor" the meeting. He was a last-minute add-on. The scheduling vice chair was also up from ATL, had been scheduled previously.

Quotes from the C1 reps as shared with me: the company is "overreaching." "Comany's shopping cart getting full...ours is not." "Company needs to negotiate in better faith.". There are apparently a few good things in the deal. Money hasn't been discussed. Reps not happy about the unsigned hit piece from the comm chairman after the C1 update.

Apparently the reps said they remained optimistic, but I can't see how after the 44 update. That was brutal.

Why is Dalpa still sitting at the table? Why not take a few weeks off? What's the rush??

gzsg

Exactly. Did they learn nothing from O'Malley's epic failure?

This will be done this month. Why? What's the rush to degrade our sick leave? C2012 was filled with major unnecessary concessions. We made gains in sick leave. Now we are going degrade sick leave? One step forward, two steps back.

Slow down and get the deal we deserve.

Check Essential

"Money hasn't been discussed."

There's been a lot of panic about all the concessions but that could all be silenced when management slides that last crucial slip of paper across the table.

OK. I will admit it. I can be bought. (except maybe on scope)

But if all these concessions are in the deal, its going to have to be A LOT more than 9966.

Once money does get discussed, we should know real soon whether to walk away for a few weeks.

notEnuf

As of now I am not invited to the special MEC meeting. The responses I received can be summed up as: closed is closed and your turn to speak is during open mike at the regular MEC meeting. This is what I expected. Thank you to those who responded. The majority did not.

I can now only hope that the second paragraph of the letter has some impact.

"In the event that I am restricted from the closed session portion of the meeting I would like to remind you that if any vote or topic is presented that you would like to consider further you are within your right to motion to table the vote or discussion. The meeting timeline may not allow you to consider all the information presented to you fully. There is no deadline to end debate of any issue if you need to review information presented. Time alone away from the other members to reflect on the event or to consider carefully your decision is prudent and should be encouraged should any member make such a request. We have elected you because we trust your judgment and that you will take the time for due diligence on all matters that are of importance to the 12,000 plus members."

Why did I write the letter?

As evident at the council 1 meeting, there is a lack of trust in the process. Two resolutions passed that have to do with the verification of the process.

Trust but verify is the principle we adhere to.

We are asked to trust almost daily but there is no verification.

After the 2012 announcement and vote I have concerns about this stage of the process. History shows once a TA has passed the MEC the membership votes to accept it. The member ratification, while an important step to us, is really only a formality to management.

My prediction is we will get something just short of a TA. A pseudo TA or agreement in principle is not the end game. The language will be incomplete and the pay will be as leaked or a little better. Remember the TA is not a TA until the MEC votes in the affirmative. I was hoping to witness this process, now my only option is to trust without verification. An option is only an option if there is an alternative so I really have no options.