I also agree, we could be making something out of nothing.

At the end the chairman stated it’s a new chapter of how management is acting towards us in a positive ,anger and to forget the past, I think some posters in here are from the bankruptcy age and have zero trust in management, but if the chairman of the union is stating that, let’s try and trust management, maybe they finally realized that the past ways is not effective especially after the AIP deal, so let’s just see what happens


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well, technically the by-laws require posting for 10 days before voting.
Requires posting of special meetings at least 24 hours in advance (traditionally by email to all members and bulletin board in the MEC office)
If it is substantial changes it requires a pilot vote. Now, according to the ALPA lawyers the MEC determines what “substantial” means; however I’d say changes of up to 15% is substantial. Further, flow has never ever been changed by MEC vote. It’s always been by pilot vote or the result of arbitration award or settlement. This sets a bad precedent. Next to a 15% pay change and flow change... what else would be more substantial than that? The by-laws are there for a reason.

They are bleeding pilots and the MEC keeps passing band-aids. Use it to get your 50% of all new hire positions language back. Call the MEC office and demand your right to vote on substantial CBA changes. (817)685-7474
Then vote no until they give back what they stole. Get your raises and your 50% flow back, but for everybody. They want withholding to 29 for temporary tight staffing due to training bubbles, fine... but require them to show at least 50% flow by the end of each year.

The change to flow last year was by MEC vote.

Wasn’t that a grievance settlement....
Was there more than one change? Thought I read it was a grievance settlement?

The MEC doesn’t typically vote on grievance settlements.

The points are all still valid. By-laws exist for a reason.

I think it was less of a grievance settlement and more of an agreement to withdraw grievances and an agreement that the company can meter to 50%.

But I guess that’s just splitting hairs.

I am concerned that the union just accepted the deal that the company proposed without a counter. Certainly sounds that way to me. Literally nothing from the original AIP was included beside the pay increase. From the information we have now I am disappointed.

This is where I am. Should have held the line for AIP.

:mad:

While I agree, I am sure that they were put in a no win situation. The company clearly screwed up with the AIP. So what are the unions options? They could sue. If it made it though the federal courts (which would be years) then there’s a chance that they could win. More than likely they would end up settling, which would be less than the AIP.

Or they can go back and negotiate a smaller deal with the goal to continue to make gains. Let’s not forget that this isn’t section 6 and the company and the Association seem to do everything via LOA.

Knowing how people voted, and the details of the LOA are important to see in the very near future. ALPA has to post the minutes for transparency.

I agree with you. But it was an LOA voted on by the MEC to get increased flow and other items. In the LOA included the requirement to withdraw the flow grievance.

Forgive my ignorance, but isn’t the union supposed to keep its members in the loop on what’s happening with important things like contact change negotiations? Seems like a periodic email to the pilots would be in order as things develop. Details can’t be shared of negotiations, but a general update would help, right? How does that work for you guys??