Stoutflier

Council 20 / DTW

Special C2015 TA MEMRAT Results Update

July 14th, 2015



As you have most likely heard, the results of the vote on the Tentative Agreement were announced approximately 30 minutes after the balloting closed on Friday the 10th:



65% against ratification of the agreement, 35% in favor, with a participation rate of 97%.



That participation rate is extremely impressive; Thank You very much for your participation in the process and in the vote. This was clearly a strong “grass roots” effort. We have not received any demographic breakdown. Previously the MEC has received at least a breakdown by base, but reportedly there’s some kind of “technical issue” delaying that information. More on that when we know something.



The membership has spoken out strongly against this TA, especially considering the aggressive ratification campaign. We (the C20 reps) suspected, based upon a broad spectrum of input, that there was a very significant gap between expectations and results relative to the parameters of the Agreement. To say that the MEMRAT results affirmed that perception significantly more than we expected would be an understatement.



Many of you have asked “What now?”



What we have written previously is still applicable:



“If the TA fails, well, a whole range of interconnected decisions will have to be made by both the Company and ALPA; Re-engage? Don’t re-engage? Wait? Until when? With whose involvement? Under what parameters / threats / deadlines?



Whatever those choices are, what is for certain is that we'll continue to work together under our existing pay, work rules (including sick leave, productivity and SCOPE), and profit sharing parameters, continuing to do the best job possible for our airline, our passengers, our fellow employees….



The Path to a deal is not likely through the NMB, even if they are ultimately involved; it will be through the mutual needs of both parties.”



These decisions are now upon us. We are beginning to address these issues now and will continue as a group at a special MEC meeting next week. Key among these issues will be how to move forward after an MEC communications effort that was so invested in the TA’s success, and in some cases more so than the actual result delivered, and so emphatic about the inability to improve the parameters of the deal.



Note also that 11 of the 19 voting (status) reps and 7 of the 9 non-voting (non-status) reps ultimately expressed support for the deal (though not all at the outset). This majority group of the MEC could still determine the course to the next deal, either choosing to regard, rationalize, or ignore the membership vote until representatives, determined from three council elections this fall, take office next March.



We are certainly willing to work with anyone on the MEC in an effort to determine who can best move this process forward, and in what manner, to achieve a result that addresses the concerns and expectations as enunciated by all forms of previous input, as well as the TA vote results, the participation level, and any future polling. However we also believe that the status quo relative to some elected or appointed MEC personnel carries significant risks in achieving a more desirable result.



Changing the personnel who will interact with the Company can happen a few different ways, ranging from a shorter to longer timeline:



Resignations
The majority of the existing MEC is willing to take action.
The majority of the existing MEC is not willing to take action and no changes can be made to personnel until new reps (in three of the nine LECs; ATL, SLC, DTW) take office next March. We have been told that there are individual Local Council memberships who may be attempting to address representational issues which could shorten the above timeline to perhaps October or November.


Special MEC Meeting July 21-22 in Herndon, VA

We were notified today (July 14th) that the previously announced meeting would be held at the Hyatt Reston (near the ALPA Int’l offices in Herndon). We are disappointed about this choice. We imagine we should be expecting some suggestions, solutions or proposals from ALPA International personnel; perhaps some will be helpful.



The meeting will be held at the Hyatt Regency, 1800 Presidents Street, Reston, VA 20190. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 0900. Some portions of special meetings are typically in closed session.



Please stay involved in the process. We certainly appreciate your engagement, support, and encouragement (including from a sizable number of members from other councils). Please continue to be persistent and patient when you contact us; we’re still working through a significant backlog of emails and calls.



The continued high level of participation from the membership will certainly help to achieve the contract that we expect and deserve.



Fraternally,



Bill, Tom and Rich



PS….We will be in the DTW Lounge this week, so please stop by.

Karnak

Ignoring the question of why the reps who opposed the 2012 TA didn't resign after it passed by a similar margin, it might be fun for someone to attend the next LEC 20 meeting and ask Bill how he reacted in 2003 when his vote to reject the 10% raise TA was met by 80% of his constituents voting For it.

I would be nice to see reps hold themselves to the same standard they demand of others.

DeadHead

Probably because he spoke for the pilots of council 20.

The LECs speak for their pilots and the MECs should speak for the majority of the LECs. We have the exact opposite now and that's is what needs to change.

Purple Drank

If the reps are convinced they represented their pilots, they have nothing to fear from a recall, right?

jetnwa

OK' in that time frame furlough recalls were going on with the company. When I talked to DC head of HR she said, " we are trying to get every one back ASAP"

Was it this contract or the "flex up" with the cargo issues that furloughed all the recalled guys?

jetnwa

For the rest of the South guys, when my group got furloughed from NWA, the company kept our furlough pay. IOW, RA made the executive decision to kick us in the stones on the way out the door. It was a business decision. I sort of needed that money.

He left and a new CEO was present. We were recalling pilots then an agreement was made with the union......then all the recalled guys were furloughed again.

Now, we have an upset CEO. I keep enough cash in the bank to deal with guys like this. His charm wore off on me a long time ago. I would the suggest others do the same. Don't be afraid. It is nothing personal, it is business.

Carl Spackler

Folks, this is the new coordinated mantra from the Special Committee flight pay loss guys. They're attempting to equate voting with vigorous selling and distorting facts in order to get something passed. It's easy to knock down, but it will be the signature of these attack dogs.

When you hear these guys say this, the answer is simple. Bill voted NO and said he didn't think it was enough. That's it. He didn't lie and distort facts, then spend untold dues dollars selling his NO position. Many of the YES voters for this rejected TA did just that. If they'd only voted and given their reasoning as to why, they'd probably be safe. That's not what they did however.

Translation: The guys that I owe all my flight pay loss to are in big trouble right now. If they go, no extra pay for me. Posting on APC will no longer be profitable. Got to attack NO voting reps with everything I've got.

Pathetic.

Carl

Carl Spackler

Yup. That's why nobody in C1 had a problem with Bill voting no to that 10% bump years ago. A majority may have voted for the 10% bump, but appreciated Bill's reasoning that it was far too low and that we should fight for more. They still thought he supported them, so as you say, there was nothing for Bill to fear. These YES voters today know they f'd up and now they're begging the MEC attack dogs to save them. Big difference.

Carl

boog123

Yet he still keeps getting elected….. me thinks his constituents think he's doing a good job

notEnuf

Even if Bill is a perma-no voter, he would only balance out 1 perma-yes voter. At least he has solid reasoning and is in tune with the membership's 65% majority. The others, not so much.