Link to TA....
 

Why was it deleted? Gotta vote for it so you know what's in it?

Fortunately, got my hands on a copy. If people truly care about scope more than industry standard pay, this will go down. Section 1 is setup to further reduce our wide body flying. Good thing our friends in Australia, China, Mexico, Korea, Brazil, Italy, India, France, United Kingdom and Amsterdam are willing to do that flying for us:rolleyes:

Apologies to any of our JV friends I may have missed.

Maybe it wasn't the actual TA? I don't know....

The real one is out there.

IF that leaked version turns out to be true, they have done an amazing job of laying out the pay rates to get people already saying yes and now they wont read it to see all these scope cutouts and 3b4 cutouts.

It was deleted shortly after it was posted. I'm guessing it was an unauthorized leak? The document wasn't finalized? I downloaded the copy, but after about 20 of 505 pages my eyes started glazing over and I decided that I'll wait for the summaries from smarter brains than mine.

Looks like the Council 1 chairman leaked it. This is ridiculous. He didn't even bother to clean up the trail of crumbs that lead right back to his desk.

"No, I haven't seen your cookies. I hate cookies. Nom nom."

Who benefits from violating the policy manual in this manner? The objective should be for every pilot to make a rational decision, but Jon Lewis is opposed to that. Shameful and dishonorable behavior.

Yes - We deleted it. It appears that the anonymity feature of APC was used to leak a document get it out. Someone created an APC account and posted a link to the leaked TA with their first post. User since banned.

It appeared on Chit Chat a few minutes later. If someone wants to get the info out on Chit Chat - let them post it there under there own name.

Please do not post it until it is officially released, which should be about a week.

Scoop

Not sure where it came from, but are you opposed to the pilots seeing the TA? I think we should all be able to see it absent a 1.5M propaganda campaign.

of course he is. he wants to see the TA pass no matter what concessions are in.

Every pilot will see the TA long before they have to vote on it.

Let me get this straight. You don't care if reps leak information they know is supposed to be confidential?

Which other sections of the Policy Manual do you think should be ignored?

- Membership ratification?
- The 7-day period for a new TA prior to the MEC voting?
- Requirement for the reps to confirm MEC chairman committee appointments?

Leaking confidential information is bad. Violating the trust of your fellow reps is bad. The content of the TA is a separate issue.

To answer your question, I think the pilots should see the TA after our reps have reviewed it, been briefed on all aspects of its details, and voted to send it out to us. I'd prefer to have my reps understand its contents so they can answer the questions I'll have.

I think this MEC has done a good job of publishing table positions to us over the previous months.

I believe I said I'm in favor of all pilots seeing the TA without a lopsided pro TA filter.

Just the facts (all the facts-good and bad), then allow us to make an informed decision.

If section 1 is of primary concern to you, this TA is a serious setback with respect to wide body flying.

We will waste 45-60 days with a vote that we can get back if we all see the TA now and can tell our reps to vote Yes or No to send it out to us.

All you and the Yes crowd want is to waste more time trying to fight for the right contract so you can sit back and say "I told you so".

Sad and pathetic.

I am only opposed to violations of the rules that we all agree to follow. The consideration of the TA should be orderly, logical, and not turn into a populist s__tshow because certain parties view the rejection of the agreement as an essential part of their political strategy.

Lewis is opposed to ANY rational outcome. Leaking the deal, spooling up the orange wackadoodles, and attacking the character and credibility of the elected officers, negotiators and volunteers are all that we can expect from this clown.

I won't tell anyone how to vote. Read what our elected negotiators send you, consider the terms and the rational consequences of either choice, and make a logical decision.

You're just mad because your minority side no longer controls the show.

So you're opposed to the pilots getting to vote on their future!

So you're opposed to pilots getting to decide whether we want our reps to waste 45-60 days on something we don't want! You're a dictator!

I can agree with most of this, but you must realize the negotiators are going to put their pro spin on this as this is their product. Not a neutral source for balanced information.

404 I don't see it that way at all, if anything, if this TA is better than the yes voters can't say I told you so, quite the opposite. I honestly don't think most pilots care about the politics of yes or no camps, they care about getting a contract they can approve and vote in favor of. I don't need a leaked TA, I can wait until after the MEC has a look. If it passes the MEC I'll take a look and make my own decision. I am however concerned about the C1 chairman violating the trust of his fellow reps and Delta pilots by taking it upon himself to leak the TA. We really can't operate that way and be successful.

So it looks like you are saying that the pilots should tell the reps whether or not to pass something along to the pilots without the pilots having any knowledge of said document.

Is that about right?

I can glean nothing else from your ridiculous arguments other than standard DPA obstruction.

I thought the conventional wisdom was that we aren't in a hurry. So what's the big deal about 45-60 days. I don't consider it a waste of time to follow our process.

I don't care about the politics....

Now let's bash C1 because someone made an accusation ....:confused:

You're mad because someone showed you what you could be voting on? OH, the horror!

Transparency... only bad for those that want to hide the truth from you.

What does DPA have to do with with? ALPA is my only representation I currently have.

Sounds like you and a DPA needs to get a room and work out your issues.

Sure, whatever 'Purple'. You fool nobody.

???

You're not making any sense. I'm not mad and I'm in no hurry. I can wait a week for the MEC to do their job, just like I waited for the negotiators to do theirs. I'll have an opportunity to read the TA and ask questions if a TA comes out for memrat.

Why does it need to come out for memrat for you to see it? You should be able to see it now.

Like I said, you and DPA need to get a room.

What "breadcrumbs"...? Are we talking IP traces on the (now banned?) OP, or something else?

.
Uh oh . . . . it looks like Purple Drunk is hitting the sauce a little early today. Stand back!
.

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.