Is Some Input More Equal Than Another?
 

I'm here looking for rumors on movement on an overall deal. Seems a little quiet on that front.

What I'm seeing is a lot of "contact your reps", because "your voice isn't being heard". I've spoken to several reps, from my councils and others (none of whom are remotely controversial on APC), and they all relate the same. Without betraying any specific conversation, the composite picture was that a minority wants the company opener on Section 1, a minority wants to burn everything to the ground, and the majority is somewhere in between, and wanting to discuss specific issues, while awaiting a deal that they can judge in its' entirety.

Oddly now, I'm even seeing reps asking their members to offer input back to themselves, and to the Admin (which works directly for them), and even being so courteous as to tell the members what sort of input they need to hear.

Now these cries for help on APC.

So I just want to make sure... When you guys ask pilots to contact their reps, you're just asking them to exercise their democratic rights, and making their own voice heard, no matter what they want, right?

What are you driving at man?! Contact your rep with your desires. Whatever that might be.

For me it's RESTORATION.

That seems simple enough, restore the value of the PWA to pre-bankruptcy levels. That's sick leave, medical insurance, vacation value, 12+year old pay rates, a retirement equivalent and retain the profit sharing return on our investment.

Sinkr8 returns. Looks like they're getting the whole TA15 sales team back together.

Now that's funny!

If our reps need to be told that we don't want concessions, they need their head examined.

They're not called "concessions" anymore, they're now "necessary changes". :rolleyes: And I'll stipulate to the fact nobody wants them, no matter what they're called.

What I want to know is why reps are writing their membership asking them for specific feedback, and asking their pilots to write the Admin and NC to give them the same specific feedback. "Here, I want you to ask me for this, and please make sure you ask Malone too". I'm paraphrasing a couple of updates that were forwarded from other councils, but that's the gist of it. That's not the way I understood direction and democracy to work.

necessary changes? verrryy interestinnngg.....

Is retirement restoration on the list??:D

I doubt it. I assume you mean a DB plan? We sacrificed enough to have a retirement in our own name to try to be on the receiving end of another Madoff/Ponzi.

I personally listened to two reps from different councils tell their members that's a pipe dream. The regulatory hurdles alone are a problem, and the cost would be in the 4-5 million range. If we can get that much money, as one of the two reps put it, it would be better to distribute it to the pilots. Anything else, where you try to make some pigs more equal than others, you'd get a revolution.

My apologies if you meant increasing everyone's DC funding. I think that would be a great idea.

well....instead of a pension, I would much rather have a check waiting at the end of my last trip with a number followed by 000,000.00 :D

Makes perfect sense that you would rather. Seems like a DC fund is the way to get a check in your own name. The DB fund, as we've learned, gets you a promise.

A promise: how nice.

At any rate, an interesting topic for a retirement restoration thread.

As for this topic, we're all cool with pilots giving input to their reps as they see fit, and reps acting according to that input, especially when the input is quantifiable, right?

Just trying to put together your questions. If reps are wanting their constituents input directly and want it to go to Malone and the NC, then either they are trying to head off another "gone rogue" situation or they are getting conflicting information from individuals and the polling that has been described as having leading questions. I still haven't been polled, ever. I'm beginning to become suspicious myself. Statistically valid polling is being conducted to gauge the pilot group is what I read somewhere.

Is this what you mean? Is that a bad thing? Are the reps uncomfortable with the administrations willingness to follow their direction? If they are trying to get 50.1%, then Malone's rhetoric is hollow and retrenching.