In the call it was asked if the MEC had input into retirement direction and the answer was yes. When will I be able to vote for you in an election? When will I be able to call or email you as a Committee Chairman or Committee Member? Never….. So let’s have some trust since you are not doing anything. Instead you attempt to paint all these volunteers as nefarious crooks. Then you ask them to bring you bars of gold. Interesting way of going about things.

First off, good for you keeping such good notes, I thought I was the only one who kept a copy of my questions. But what you did not say is the question was not asked as written.

Did the MEC give direction to the NC, not did they have any input? One is directive, the other is participatory. One shows leadership, the other does not.

Thank you for getting back the the real questions we should be asking right now.

An earlier question was asked about latitude, think back to the post contract 15 activities and figure out who is protecting themselves, and from what, if the MEC fails to deliver again.



You can call me anytime you want and ask about my positions and I will be glad to do the same.

I think we are having the wrong conversation
 

My rep has said there are specifics, including retirement, of which they shared a scrubbed version to us so as not to hurt our bargaining position. So who debated, wrote, and unanimously passed the resolution for contract openers?

Also, your accusations that I quoted back to you said nothing specific about retirement. It was a blanket statement. Now you are moving the goal post. Why?

First, I never said there weren't specifics. Second, what you quoted included a "...." at the end indicating the remaining part of my post, which did include retirement. Did your rep say that the MEC told the NC the specifics that they wanted to be negotiated, or did they say the proposal contained specifics. I have an email from my block rep saying that the MEC didn't vote on which plan to pursue regarding retirement. Again, believe what you want. Merry Christmas.

The problem is in the details. Get your thinking caps on and go through this. Let's say the NC comes back with "you get a 50% a-plan, and you get a 15% B-plan, are you okay with that? The answer SHOULD BE MAYBE, what are the details. Is the 50% A-plan based on my first year on property, or the last, the highest, or a combination of all years, ETC. When do I know the value of my retirement? If I was sick, or on LTD, does that count against me? Are there any limits? What if I make a million dollars during Covid, does that help or hurt me? Same questions for the B-plan. Does every dollar I earn count?

Details, Details, Details. This is the part we need to be talking about. Everyone knows the current formula, and everyone pretty much agrees when things change, interpretation is rarely on our side. That is why not changing the formula has so much value.

Saying you rep had some insight and voted to allow the NC to go get what they think is best holds some danger.

In '15 Retirement was a cornerstone, NO PBS was a cornerstone. That MEC did not have the fortitude to hold the line and toss the "TA in concept" back to the NC when it failed to meet those cornerstone goals and either replace them or have them try again. One of the big pressures was the lack of remaining funds at the MEC level. Another was going to ALPA national for the MCF grant, that ask also came with added scrutiny. The MEC has learned from those mistakes and is financially ready.

Getting our openers right before we negotiated was of paramount importance. We needed to have cornerstones. Sadly we have platitudes instead.

So ask you rep this. Do you know the value of our ask? Do you know the details and what events effect our outcome. Is the Bag-lady going to exclude pilots again this go around? In short do you know the details, or are you just going to trust the SMEs, again.

It will be hard work and take a long time to master the TA. I doubt that time will be taken by many on our side, But I would bet those on the other side of the table will know to the penny and all the details.


If you are still with me, think about this: Why are we so resistant to holding the MEC, the Officers, and the NC to the highest standards and demanding the best possible TA? Why is this group so apathetic? What are we afraid of? Be honest. The answers will be reflected in your pay checks, your retirement checks, your healthcare costs, you seat progression, your deadhead seating arrangements, substitution, ETC.



Ignorance is no excuse.

You are right, you did mention retirement. I took your accusation to mean the entire items being negotiated. I went back and reread your post and see that was the thrust of your point. My apologies.

But I didn’t say you said there were no specifics. I simply said that my rep said there were specifics, including retirement. If there weren’t specifics, there wouldn’t be actual bullet points written from those specifics used to publish the openers. Those specifics are what was voted on by the MEC to be the openers.

Next, after voting on the openers, the MEC chair or nc chair or anyone on the MEC can go tell everyone that they feels it’s best to negotiate for everyone to get a pet rock for their retirement. That doesn’t change the fact that specific items were discussed and voted on by the MEC. And it doesn’t change the fact that the reps who voted for those openers will expect the nc to come to them with something very similar to what was in the openers and vote accordingly to send it for ratification.

Here is my point of all this, from my reading of your posts, it seems like you are saying that the nc chair decided all on his own what sections to open for negotiations, what sections not to open for negotiations, what specific items in those sections to negotiate, what specific language to negotiate, how long to negotiate, how long of a contract to negotiate, and then to present that to the MEC without the reps having in preconceived idea of what may or may not have been negotiated. The fact that we have a document published and a record of a vote by the MEC on the openers to be negotiated goes against any evidence you have provided up to this point.

Maybe I’m reading you all wrong, so where am I going astray? Because you made some pretty serious accusations without enough to validate them to any degree of logic with the facts at hand, let alone actual evidence to make your case other than your anonymous word.

Yes, I agree completely. I don’t see a problem with that at all.

Glad we can have a civil discussion. As far as accusations go, I don't see it that way. If I am not being clear enough, I apologize. My point is with retirement. The MEC should be stating how we are going to improve our A plan and the path we intend to take. By saying that the NC chairman has his hand on the rudder, I am saying that the NC chairman has been given the latitude to chose which path they think is best, whether it be PSPP, increase FAE, Flat dollar, etc. That is not how it is suppose to work. The MEC should be dictating the path forward to the NC and leading the crew force. Having been here long enough to work under every contract, I have seen how the "trust us" model works. While I am sure the intentions are good, the results are mixed. So no, I don't blindly trust that the NC isn't going to seek the PSPP, regardless of what there poll results showed. There was a poll that was open to everyone a couple of years ago. It had the usual questions, and then had areas that the crew force could write what they wanted. Those text blocks were suppose to be tabulated and the results released to the crew force the same way they released the results of the poll questions. The results of the text responses were never released. Why?

I attend the PUB meetings. I hear the questions and answers. I have talked to my reps. You can either believe what I say or not. You should be contacting your reps like you do. Ask specific questions and don't settle for general answers.

I'll end by asking why would the MEC provide a retirement plan proposal outside of section 6 without any agreement to negotiate with the company? Why would our current proposal be any different now? What changed between then and now regarding our retirement? We showed our hand in 2018, now the MEC says that they can't tell us which path we are on because it compromises our position. I don't buy it.

Again, Merry Christmas and be safe.

I wish that were the case, and I hate to have to tell you this (because I hate that it is this way), but the MEC did not discuss specific retirement proposals before forming the general, vague bullet points of The Openers. The MEC did not know the details of our initial retirement proposal until it was presented to The Company. The MEC voted on the vague openers, and left it to the Negotiating Committee to fill in the details.

Of course, YOU know how it's supposed to work, because that's what you just described. Unfortunately, that's NOT the way it DID work, and that's half the reason I have been so focused on getting the MEC to tell us exactly which direction we are going with our retirement proposals. If we're shooting to raise the FAE Cap on the current pension plan we have, I'm not asking for that number. If we're shooting for some version of a variable benefit plan, I'm not asking for the hurdle rates or the funding scheme for the stabilization fund. If we're looking for a flat dollar supplement to our current pension plan, I'm not asking for specific numbers. I'm not asking for DETAILS, but I do think it's fair for us to know if we're fighting to preserve and improve our current pension or trying to invent something to replace it.

And it would have been nice for the MEC to have known that before they agreed simply to "Improve our defined benefit."

As pinseeker has explained, they left those decisions to the Negotiating Committee - the NC has the rudder.






.

Like you said, someone could pick up a trip a straight time 7 days in advance. They could also trade for a trip that started 7 days in advance. Saying that a trip that leaves open time 7 days in advance was picked up at AVA is an assumption. Nowork said he knew who was picking up trips at AVA by watching open time.

As far as trips still being in open time inside of the assignment window goes, I have put in for trades before the assignment window opened only to wait for hours for the trade request to be processed. Sometimes that trade is approved well after the assignment window has opened even though the trade was submitted earlier. So again, using that strategy is just a guess. The only way to know is to know the pay code.

I feel sorry for people who don't have anything better to do than to try to figure out what everybody else is doing. Quite pathetic actually.