Read between the lines....
 

Brown looking in....

Just read the 9/1 statement from the MEC Chairman... He neither endorses or recommends this agreement. He states that he remains "neutral". He also goes on to say that he looks to see the commitment of the group through this vote.

In union-speak he is looking for a strong NO vote so that he can go back to the table and get you what you deserve - - industry leading CBA and no concessions.

Also a less than unanimous 10-4 vote is very telling.

From the latest Chairman's message:

I have no intention of selling this agreement. I believe the agreement can speak for itself, though it will most likely require additional explanation in order for most to fully comprehend many of the changes. As I have done for the MEC, I intend to remain neutral so as not to tell you what to think about this agreement. Please do not read anything else into my neutrality. I suppose its human nature that those in favor have already assumed I’m opposed, and those that are opposed have assumed I’m in favor. My neutrality is not the issue, the TA is the issue. There are facts to consider, but some of the more important decisions will no doubt be opinion based, hopefully after the facts have been allowed to inform those opinions. Only one opinion matters now, and it’s yours.
I have no desire to tell you what to think, but I will use all our ALPA resources to help you understand the agreement and attendant issues. This is a complex agreement and as such it will take a great deal of communication over the next several weeks.
At the end of bargaining, your Negotiating Committee believes they have bargained as much value from the corporation as possible. They returned to the MEC with that offer about two weeks ago. The MEC debated the pros and cons of continuing to bargain, and ultimately they elected to approve the TA for your consideration. So, now you, just like your elected representatives, have a decision to make—accept this offer and continue to work toward our collective goals going forward, or refuse this TA, and continue to fight in hopes of attaining a better deal. I encourage you to consider all facets and make the most rational decision possible for you and your family.
Please let us know what information you need to better understand the TA. Also, know that I understand the disappointment for many of you, and I also understand that many others will find satisfaction. Many of you are no doubt conflicted and face an important choice with less than perfect information. Such are the challenges we face, but I look forward to seeing what result your collective wisdom and commitment ultimately derives.

Really?? Is that what you get from this?

I can't blame the union reps (even though I'm not happy) if we don't vote no. If the company and the mediator are mostly confident that a proposal will pass what incentive do they have to push any further? At least until we collectively give them a reason it is done. If you feel a little disappointed in this deal I guess you need to ask yourself do you think the company is also a little disappointed in this deal? Is the company hoping the pilots will vote No, so they can either stall or negotiate a better position? If one side is comfortable and satisfied, and the other side is disappointed it is a lop sided deal. A fair deal is probably one both sides are a little disappointed.

Also, I don't understand why someone would vote yes to something they already know is not good simply because they are uncertain the alternative of trying a little more might not work out. It is not like this TA made such massive gains that I'm worried about losing it.

This did not strike me as a cryptic message.

We should thank the Negotiating Committee for their efforts, ease their transition back to the line, and replace them with a fresh team that BELIEVES there is more bargaining to be done.

The MEC Chairman understands that he works for the MEC which voted in favor of the TA. In that capacity, it would be improper for him to publicly oppose the TA. This tepid stance is very telling.






.

Concur, and while we''re at it, how about if ALPA spends some of our hard earned dues on professional negotiators to bolster that fresh team? I'm all for having my colleagues participate as subject matter experts but let's the pros do the heavy lifting.
I've mentioned the "halo effect" before and I'm a believer that just because you can change a light bulb doesn't make you an licensed electrician.
Let the "how many pilots does it take" jokes fly.....:D

Doesn't matter how you feel about the TA....this guy has gotta make you laugh!


Soothsayer!

Please do not read anything else into my neutrality. I suppose its human nature that those in favor have already assumed I’m opposed, and those that are opposed have assumed I’m in favor. My neutrality is not the issue, the TA is the issue.

If a 10-4 vote is good why didn't they leave it at 8-6.

He's just trying not to go the way of the Delta MEC if this deal gets turned down. He saw what happened when you stand firmly behind lackluster TA.

When somebody says, "My neutrality is not the issue, the TA is the issue," this means that his neutrality IS indeed an issue, and he's trying to convince you otherwise.

I think he's playing it straight.

Also think he's a 1 term chairman, I was somewhat surprised when he mentioned his age\career at the last meeting. Everything he said then, is consistent with what he just emailed now.

One of the comments our Senior Attorney made was how amused he was to read the comments about getting professional negotiators vice pilots at the table. Because it's not just the pilots sitting there, but some of the same people who worked with UALs MEC and DALs MEC when they signed their industry leading contracts circa 2002