And they have not replaced them why? The MEC also had to endorse these items before they became AIP's.

 

I actually personally don't think EVERY AIP is cast in stone. Most of my sources would disagree 100% with me on that, but maybe there is a little wiggle room?

Face it: if the company lets us renege on things we previously agreed, they have no credibility, and neither does the entire process.

I heard that there was one piece that was a legitimate misunderstanding between the NC and MEC, so the NC had to go back in and explain that the item was there mistake. You can do that sort of thing once or twice, with a minimal loss of credibility.

I suppose the 12 probably can get away with a tweak of one of their AIP's, or maybe two, without bargaining in bad faith. I don't know where the breaking point is. Evidently, JM told the pilots at the 44 meeting that we can't change the AIP's. I didn't hear him speak, so I can't comment on how finely he put that.

I just know the MEC owns their work, warts and all. I don't much like most of them, but I do want them to succeed. I do think they're a bit stuck in the politics at the moment. I hope that for everyone's sake there can be some change of some item, and they can declare victory, and we can do our part by overlooking any weird attempt to blame one another.

What POS PS AIP do you mean? Have they settled PS?

 

Can you post the PS AIP? I can't find it anywhere.

 

H5O might be referring to the comment about company asks to exclude the MIP and pensionability of PS.

In which case, I bet the 3 of us might agree that the ask is excessive. I think you can actually cap the MIP by putting a max number on it, but the pensionability piece is a lot of money.

 

Great Idea. Line item veto by the actual pilot group before this crap gets published in a TA.

 

I was under the impression that the 2 PS changes we've talked about for over a month here were agreed to but you're right. Can't find them. Very good news thanks.

 

The profit sharing changes are a company proposal. Not an AIP.

 

So I copied the post you responded to above, below...!


It's simple. We elect our reps, who comprise the MEC. A section 6 negotiation ends in that body voting a TA up or down (most of the time) If it's up, to memrat it goes. If we don't let this process work, why even have an MEC? Make all contract items, from MOU up thru section 6 negotiations memrat only.

Read what I wrote, and you didn't respond to, and tell me which piece I'm missing? So if I get what you're laying down...last summer, when possibly you, and your buddies on the MEC jammed TA15 down our throat, input did, or didn't drive the process? I would go with didn't, based on the historic first ever failed TA ratification in Delta Air Lines history, and by two thirds to boot. That occurred after the MEC didn't vote in the affirmative on TA 15, they just voted, 11 to 8, to let the membership decide. But after that, before the vote, the 11 wrote lengthy missives telling me why I should vote yes, less than a month after they felt the need to not vote. I agree sink, there is nothing to fear from a vote. I just wish our MEC during TA15, failed, would have embraced your opinion!

Don't know what else you, and those that want a contract yesterday at any expense, have left to try and sell the deal that John Malone would have us vote yes on?

 

Tanker,

MEC's come, MEC's go, the pilot group remains. To each MEC their problems. You keep referring to people that are not in charge. I'm speaking about those that are in charge, and their work.

The 12 claim to be speaking for the vast majority of pilots. I contend that they speak only for the majority of the MEC, and are trying to lead the opinion of the group. I hold them accountable for the work of the MEC. I do not blindly accept their claims, just like people didn't go along with Donatelli and the MEC last year. I have very good reasons to believe that the 12 are risking a deal the pilots want, in an attempt to deflect responsibility for the inevitable controversies over the concessions that they endorsed. I can't prove this to you, but the group can certainly validate it one way or another.

So it's actually even more simple than you say: they need to show their work, and we need to make a call.

 

So convenient for you to say the last MEC came and went? You call for the current MEC to show their work, and I believe they have and will soon. But you refuse to answer my question with how the now dethroned MEC did business last vote? They've shown their work at the special meeting in August. They said that we are the majority, and you will address the wants and needs of the majority. Feel free to speak to how the MEC handled the vote/TA last summer if you want to? If not, I understand sink. They didn't vote that TA up or down, they passed that burden onto the pilot group, and we said you are wrong, 65 to 35.

You love to keep referring to the present, when you won't answer any questions about how the former MEC handled business?