If the company is "not going to abuse scope", then they won't have any problem fixing it to our satisfaction.

 

As opposed to the other group who is going to drag out negotiations with unrealistic asks? There are plenty of no voters who aren’t in SM that want to keep the NC to avoid delaying negotiations.

Ask your new reps, their plan is for even further pension increases. That will continue to drag out negotiations. And a pension increase does little to help out the loudest group right now. The junior pilots.

TA1 would have passed if it had Delta pay rates. Simple as that. I don’t understand the crowd that’s against fixing the concessions of TA1 and getting leading pay. That crowd is going to cause us to miss a contract cycle.

 

Are you guaranteeing PM is going to get us leading pay? I can only go from what he’s said before about TA1 being the best he could do.

 

No. But you presume that someone else could have done better?

The time to replace them was last summer. Not now when we have an aggressive schedule with the mediator. Besides the NC works at the direction of the MEC.

Our NC now has the leverage that the pilot group voted down TA1. It will only help us moving forward. The company was only willing to compare us to UPS for pay last time.

 

I think Bill80 nails it with this comment. The time to replace PM was after the TA failed … not right as we head into aggressive negotiations with the mediators. I’m not a fan of PM, but I’m willing to see if he can redeem himself, and he does work at the direction of the MEC after all. It’s not like a new chairman on the NC is going to make the company say ‘oh oh - now we are in trouble!’. There’s a minority on the MEC who want to replace him no matter the consequences. It was pointed out at the last meeting that they simply won’t accept that they are in the minority and continue to do all they can to try and get their way. I don’t recall her exact wording, but it was well said. Evidently her sentiment didn’t register with Block 8 as he submitted an agenda item to recall the MEC treasurer on the Jan agenda, and submitting it on Christmas Eve none the less … I think that’s sinking to a new low.

 

I agree... this continued focus on replacing MEC reps or NC members is the equivalent of focusing on a burned out gear indicator as the plane crashes into the swamp.

If the MEC/NC gives us a poor TA... vote it down. Otherwise, let's get to bargaining and a new TA without all the complaining about the past. Let's move on and get a new product w/o all the drama.

 

The time to replace the NC WAS last summer. Should have been job one for MEC after the TA failed. But the then-MEC and then-current reps wouldn't do it. It took a grass-roots movement and long process to recall, re-elect, and change out reps to get even close to refreshing the NC. That said, I think you are correct that given the time it took, coupled with NMBs current timeline, makes now the WRONG time to sack the NC.

As far as could someone else have done better? IMO, absolutely. Someone without a SINGULAR focus on the A-plan, to the detriment of the rest of the sections in the CBA and the lower portions of the seniority list. Increased A-plan: good! Increased a-plan by accepting industry lagging pay, QOL concessions, and splitting the crew force for decades: BAD! Whether the blame lies with CN or PM is debatable but irrelevant to me, PM owns it. AGAIN, I agree now's not the time, but yes, someone else could have done better.

Others have pointed out that a failed TA doesn't necessarily make for leverage. I wish it did, but in reality it's just more time paying us old rates, and more time to sow dissention and split us further leading to a 50+1 vote next time. I hope that's not the case but current sentiment across the various social media factions don't give me confidence.

 

No doubt the "burn it down" crowd (the SMs current favorite label) will keep negotiations going past this spring. My point is that if the SM succeeds in getting a rushed TA1.1 out in the next few months with some pennies shuffled around, and it gets voted down, the delays from the fallout of that will be YEARS. There is NO indication that a TA1.1 in the next few months will increase the $$$ to the pilot group, just move it around some. This is per PD's own words in the now-deleted audio posting.

Maybe....but what would that imaginary TA1 have looked like? I'd guess that delta pay rates in TA1 would have meant NO a-plan increases. Which would likely have led to a lot more no votes from the top of the seniority list.

I'm not sure that crowd exists. Everyone wants to get rid of concessions and get leading pay IF they don't lose their other top goals. If you are capable of "fixing the concessions of TA1 and getting leading pay" without tanking the a-plan increases and splitting the pilot force, then I vote for you to replace PM!

 

Agreed. But our reps continue to try to replace the NC now.

The NC does not operate in a vaccuum. It is operated at direction of the MEC, whose goal was fixing the A plan. We spent 8 years trying to find a solution and TA1 was it. Yet, many of our reps are not satifisfied with the retirement improvements. They want further pension raises, in addition to scope, QOL, and pay issues addressed. Trying to get everything they want will take years, and cost us a contract cycle while we live on 2020 pay rates.
Fixing the concessions in TA1 and fixing pay should be the goal. Not a total rewrite.

The rejected TA was a black eye for the company. They might be saving money, but they are also trying to grow market share against a competitor that has zero labor issues currently. They have some incentive to get a deal done.

 

I don't know if they are the loudest, but the junior folks are absolutely the majority. Hence the stomping of feet and gnashing of teeth of the senior folks.