Originally Posted by Tuck

I disagree. You're describing the idea how it would work in a purely academic setting - like in a book - fantasy land. It's never worked that way here - NEVER. The system is the problem. You think you can get 15 guys to agree to a proposal? You think it's easy when a block rep hears from 20 constituents (most never call or write or email EVER and most don't even know who their rep is) and out of those 20, 8 say they want it one way, 4 a complete different way and another 8 say something different. Does he do a straw poll of those 20? What about the other 280 that never signaled an opinion but do have an opinion? So he's carrying your thoughts and combining them with his myriad additional experience and knowledge (by nature - who else has time to listen to 30 hours of lectures and discussions?) and making the best decision that he BELIEVES his block would want him to make. That's the way a rep system works - everywhere. Else we could just do straight up crew voting for every position and learn to love the decade it would take to negotiate anything. You think the MEC Chair just massages the way forward? He gets no say in it or doesn't influence people's opinion? Seriously? Ever attended a meeting? They are open - there's one in January - you should try to attend just for a few hours.

It's far from a perfect system and that system alone is probably our biggest impediment. I don't know of a fix that would be amiable to the crew force in general. Maybe take a look at the UPS system that only has a few full time reps - they are on full time flight pay loss, they represent a greater amount of people but by being available and always engaged they can get action done quickly and don't face the kind of turnover or high numbers in the room issue that we have. Of course they aren't ALPA and appear to be able to get a lot done (best pay rates and retirement in industry - not best work rules) under that situation. Maybe worth a look. Our system hamstrings us - I promise you we will get LESS than we should purely because of the system - even if everybody does everything else they possibly can and the wind remains at our back, we will get LESS than we deserve just because of our MEC system.

Originally Posted by pinseeker

I haven't stated anything that isn't/wasn't publicly available either via communication or PUB meeting.

Originally Posted by FXLAX

You made accusations of the NC chair, the MEC chair, and the reps. As for public communications, I read the resolution passed unanimously by the MEC on the goals for this negotiations. I haven’t read anything that says anything about your indictments of them.

Originally Posted by pinseeker

And that is the problem!!!

There is no "sort of agreeing." The MEC reps are the only individuals who are elected by the membership. The MEC reps are suppose to represent their blocks. If there is overwhelming support for a position, that rep should support that position regardless of how they feel. This idea that the rep knows what is best and can do whatever they want is one of the problems. This is only further perpetuated by the difficulty in getting a recall on the ballot. Once elected, whether it be by 100 votes or 600 votes, it is almost impossible to recall a rep who isn't doing their job.

The second problem is this idea that the MEC officers, MEC reps, and NC chairman must agree. The MEC sets our goals and positions. It is the job of the MEC chairman to guide the different committees to accomplish those goals and to lead the pilot group in supporting those goals. The NC chairman is charged with negotiating those goals. Whether the MEC votes 15-0 for a position or 8-7 for a position, it is the duty of the MEC chair to follow that position and the job of the NC chairman to negotiate that position to the best of their ability, PERIOD!!! It is not the job of the NC chairman to set goals or tell the MEC what they will support when it comes to negotiations. Either the NC chairman attempts to accomplish the stated goals of the MEC or they don't. If that individual doesn't agree with the MEC, then they can either get on board, or they can resign or be fired.

Right now, we have the NC chairman with his hand on the rudder, telling the MEC where they want to go. The MEC is complicit, willing to allow this to happen and unwilling to ask a plain and simple question, how do the members want us to improve retirement? Yes, there are a lot of opinions on that topic, but shouldn't the majority rule? If there is no majority, then it is the duty of the MEC and MEC chairman to lead us down the path they think is best, telling us what they are doing and why they think that is best, not giving the NC chairman carte blanche to do as they please on a subject. Presently, we have an MEC that is hiding behind executive session and NDA's. They won't answer questions about retirement, yet can laud the new ability to sell back all of your vacation. This, at a time when it seems the company can't hire pilots fast enough. So, what is more expensive to the company, buying back vacation, or hiring another pilot to fill the gap? That new pilot gets vacation, retirement, health care, and sick time and is another cost for the company while that pilot that they bought all of the vacation from doesn't incur any additional benefit costs, those are already set. This isn't a cost neutral benefit for the company, this is a cost savings for the company that is being sold as an improvement for us, you can work more at straight time and collect your money at the end of the year.

So, to wrap this up, Tuck, I don't think it is the system that is the problem, I think that it's that the system isn't being run as intended. The tail is wagging the dog.

Originally Posted by Noworkallplay

I find it funny to hear you pontificate while others do the work. Step up so we can all criticize you. Until then, you get one vote like me. How about you spend some time supporting those who do the work me and you are not doing.

Originally Posted by Tuck

I disagree. You're describing the idea how it would work in a purely academic setting - like in a book - fantasy land. It's never worked that way here - NEVER. The system is the problem. You think you can get 15 guys to agree to a proposal? You think it's easy when a block rep hears from 20 constituents (most never call or write or email EVER and most don't even know who their rep is) and out of those 20, 8 say they want it one way, 4 a complete different way and another 8 say something different. Does he do a straw poll of those 20? What about the other 280 that never signaled an opinion but do have an opinion? So he's carrying your thoughts and combining them with his myriad additional experience and knowledge (by nature - who else has time to listen to 30 hours of lectures and discussions?) and making the best decision that he BELIEVES his block would want him to make. That's the way a rep system works - everywhere. Else we could just do straight up crew voting for every position and learn to love the decade it would take to negotiate anything. You think the MEC Chair just massages the way forward? He gets no say in it or doesn't influence people's opinion? Seriously? Ever attended a meeting? They are open - there's one in January - you should try to attend just for a few hours.

It's far from a perfect system and that system alone is probably our biggest impediment. I don't know of a fix that would be amiable to the crew force in general. Maybe take a look at the UPS system that only has a few full time reps - they are on full time flight pay loss, they represent a greater amount of people but by being available and always engaged they can get action done quickly and don't face the kind of turnover or high numbers in the room issue that we have. Of course they aren't ALPA and appear to be able to get a lot done (best pay rates and retirement in industry - not best work rules) under that situation. Maybe worth a look. Our system hamstrings us - I promise you we will get LESS than we should purely because of the system - even if everybody does everything else they possibly can and the wind remains at our back, we will get LESS than we deserve just because of our MEC system.

Originally Posted by pinseeker

Yes, that resolution says everything you need to know. Now just follow along until they sell, I mean bring you a TA.

Originally Posted by FXLAX

What public comm gives evidence of your accusations?

Originally Posted by Tuck

Seriously? I believe it's dimensional - as in multi dimensions. It's means it is. There is no apostrophe in the possessive of its. You give the Company way too much credit - talk to anyone that has worked opposite them at the desk and you will discover that they are the least qualified at that table - they bring the least amount of knowledge and skill. Now we have a lot of reasons where we might fail - chiefly a system that has 15 reps and 3 officer and a NC Chairman that are all trying to sort of agree and that's tough...for anyone. We never seem to let an error go by so I'm not hopeful but it's not because the Company is playing chess. Please.

Originally Posted by FXLAX

What public comm gives evidence of your accusations?