Do you think Buzz felt like a victim when he used the exact same tactics to recall the Chairman?

Good point. I'm sure Buzz has used the process to his advantage over time, just like the 12 did this time. They just didn't expect to get caught, by going in executive closed session.

But Buzz is old news. The 18 others aren't. How are they doing at getting the pilots something solid to vote on?

It's tough when you have 7 men that have already surrendered.

Define surrender.

Let's cross out Buzz, because he might be controversial.
The others aren't asking for a capitulation, they claim that the 12's position has already gotten us effectively parked, and will get us parked in the near future. Showing significant movement off your opener isn't surrendering. If you're not able to make significant movement off your opener, then you're a fool and/or you don't know how to craft openers.

The 7 see a reachable deal that meets demonstrated direction, and the 12 feel political pressure from e-mails and phone contacts from a self-selected active group, so they're reneging on their joint ownership of the AIP's, and forcing direction that's allegedly going to get us parked.

The dispute is about whether or not getting parked serves the pilots.

I think sailing's summary of the difference between the groups is spot on. It's offending sensibilities, but I think he's describing exactly what's happening.

I wouldn't say the 12 "got us parked" without also saying the company got us parked. Of course, the company (thinks they) want us parked. I'd rather be parked for one thousand years than agree to a crap deal. Let them try and find pilots when we are FAR AND AWAY the worst compensated of all the legacy airlines, ****ed off, destroyed culture and even cut throat ULCC's that pay better. Bring it.

We're done selling our jobs and self funding our pay raises. We already GAVE THEM the single biggest wish list "religious" issue they supposedly had, and then after they got that...just so happened to be juuusssssssssst after the end of the busy summer season...they stonewall us on pay with:

*not enough of an increase in the first place
*taking several percent of that insufficient amount back immediately with PS changes
*wanting an UNLIMITED "officer's eat first" clause that they and they alone control.

All that AFTER they got their number one wish list item gift wrapped and bow tied.

And then they want us to pay for our insufficient pay increase, give them even more jobs, more DC-9-10 replacement jets at DCI and massively more "flexibility" with JV's beyond the agreement they don't even follow anyway? All with the worst vacation in the industry?

Nope.

Call the strike vote and work towards that end for as long as it takes.

Hopefully their plan doesn't get us the same thing it did with some of these same characters at our previous company. A lot of pain and very little gain.

The company would love for us to put up a list of new demands and not give an inch in negotiations I'm sure. They could stiff arm us forever. Maybe that's what the career politicians want.

Fair enough. The company needs to move more, and they're not jumping in with both feet, are they? I think they can definitely write a much bigger. Twhree reasons they don't: 1) they don't really have to yet, 2) time works in their favor, and 3) they have no assurances that the bigger check yields certainty of outcome anyway.

If the 12 didn't completely freeze up for three weeks before the soft park, they could have gotten more. If you can get 15-17 guys out of 19 send the NC in, saying 18/5/5, no PS changes, a little of this, a little of that, and we'll actually stand behind the TA, and sell you three years of bliss, I think the company would do it. Our problem is that we can't actually work together. You figure that with the 15-16 the 12 have, there would never have been an issue, yet here we are. All of it self-inflicted, none of it making sense.

So, yes, I agree that the company needs to come up more. I assume they're going to convince the mediator they're ready to continue serious negotiations, make serious movement.

Are we?

What is this "self-selected active group" you speak of? Do you mean the people who give a hoot enough to pay attention to negotiations, read their union's material, and follow through on leadership's request that they contact their reps and make their opinions known?

Yes, yes I do mean the guys that do coordinated lobbying campaigns to reach their reps, and the reps that place that input first in their consideration, and solicit that sort of undocumented, unverifiable method first and foremost. It becomes a feedback loop, with no accountability.

I hope you're not suggesting somehow that the guys who give a hoot enough to pay attention to negotiations, read their union's material, and follow through on requests to fill out surveys or answer the phone for polling are somehow ranked lower than those who do coordinated lobbying?

No, I'm suggesting that if one doesn't contact his or her reps, he or she is yielding to the opinions of those who do (unless they are fortunate enough to be contacted for polling). I give our reps the benefit of the doubt that they don't simply bend in the breeze to this so-called "coordinated lobbying" you apparently fear. Certainly the 35%ers can lobby in the same manner. I guess it just sucks to be in the minority and feel the absence of power / influence supporting minority viewpoints.

You probably realize that for most of human history, democracy has indeed been undocumented and unverifiable. That which is documented and verifiable (polling data) hasn't yet been released anyway. If you don't trust your reps, convince the majority to vote em' out! For now, I'm digging the actions of the 12.

I've had no problems reaching my reps, and I am certainly not part of any lobbying campaign.