Maybe he's mad because somebody broke the rules on confidentiality.

This was a punishable violation of the rules.

Can you give us a list of the rules that you think should only be followed if the political winds are blowing the right way?

Methinks thou dost defend too much. ;)

There's a path and a process in place.

A very basic argument:

Let's say the proposed TA is released to the pilots before the MEC gets a chance to look it over and vote it up or down.

For argument's sake, let's say too many of the pilots see the higher pay rates and get bedazzled by visions of a shiny new Harley in their garage and a new bass boat out by the dock. And the forums fill up with posts about "Oh, gee, this is gonna be great!"

Or that a bunch of pilots exhale a cyber sigh, and write in their posts that they are grateful that the sick leave policy isn't as bad as they thought it might be. [/I]"I can live with that!"[/I]

While the pilots are drooling en mass, what if the MEC happens to find a few substandard areas of the TA and they recommend the negotiators re-engage to try to tweak them. Management, seeing the drooling on the forums after the pilot group has already seen the FULL LANGUAGE? They know they have to do absolutely nothing.

Right now, I can change my presumptive "yes" to a "no". Or my "no" "maybe" and then to a "hell no". I can flip flop to my heart's content, and no on can fault me, because I haven't seen the full language. There is a process and a path in place. Negotiators. MEC. Pilots. If you want to change the process, the time do so would have been well before negotiations even commenced.

If you want change, I'd highly recommend you introduce a resolution at your next council meeting. You'll get more traction there than on an internet forum.

And... the file has been pulled down from the hosting site we're not allowed to link to here ("File does not exist on this server"). I'm sure it's been downloaded enough that it won't truly disappear, but it's no longer online (at the original site cited here that's now banned from sight...). ;)

You're right, it was on the interwebz long enough to be like herpes...it'll always be around.

Interfering with the process by leaking is a foolhardy attempt to obstruct. Got some real zealots out there, not sure I'd want my family on your plane.

Understand the TA as passed to the Reps was not in PDF format. It was converted to PDF and under properties the author was the C1 chairman. In all fairness anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Acrobat could have done that intentionally to deflect as well.

I thought the MEC recently passed a resolution to publish a pro/con position paper, with the cons to be authored by the...."cons" with only edits for factual accuracy so leaking does nothing but politicize what should be an issue based analysis.

We elect our Reps to represent us, and part of that is I expect them to have or develop a much higher level of knowledge of contractual language and its nuances. It's taken me years to fully understand the nuances of Sec 23, let alone the whole PWA. I want my Reps to get the briefings, ask the questions, and vet the TA free from the distraction of the Internet mob.

Whoever leaked this prior to MEC review wants a mob and does not want a measured examination of the good and not so good of the TA that might lead to a ratifcation. I can only assume they want it to fail and are afraid that on examination it stands up on its own merits.

I don't know, because I haven't seen it other than the NNP'S which I view favorably so far. I'll wait for the MEC to weight in on the pros and cons. I am deeply disturbed by the intentional leak and obvious guerilla tactics to shoot down what may be a very good TA for 13000 plus pilots and their families.

The selfishness and lack of leadership of this is astounding. I feel sorry for the pilots that have the leaker as their elected Rep.

Who leaked the pay rates in the other thread titled "Possible TA?" taking a poll of "who'd vote to ratify this"?

The downloaded .pdf had *****as the author in the properties.

It was in the first announcement of the TA from the union. Every contract I have been involved with payrates are the first thing put out. They are a black and white item with no interpretation required. Nothing new in that regard on this TA.

Uh huh. What date was that polling thread started and when was the AIP (not TA) announced by the union? That thread was started WAY before the union AIP announcement, but you know that. I see lots of accusations of "agendas" and circumventing the process. Seems like there's plenty of that to go around on all fronts. When it comes right down to it, the question I ask myself is "who do I trust more - DALPA or the DPA gang". I'm not a DPA guy, but I know what the answer's been for the last year. If and when we see the T/A, I'll know who to trust in the future.