Rock

Votes are not tallied until the voting period ends. There's an entire certification and validation process and certainly the company won't have access to any of it. The "side letter" regarding the 6 week bid periods didn't come from the company. It came from our NC explaining that the company had agreed to not implement the 6 week bid periods without consulting the union. That's kind of a no brainer given that the company doesn't want the 6 week bid periods at all.
To this point, I don't believe the company has made any statement regarding the TA, other than to post a link to it on PFC at the request of the NC.
My opinion...the company is thoroughly enjoying the circular firing squad that has formed over this TA. The less stability there is in our MEC and pilot group, the better it is for them and their negotiators. When your opponent is attacking itself, you sit back, shut up and enjoy the show.

Raptor

Thanks for the info. I've wondered about the voting process.

I believe a spirited debate is healthy. The only firing squad I see is the "throw out the bums" type of thing. I assume you reference that and not a long, long discussion of pros and cons?

pipe

Care to elaborate? I'd be very interested to hear what these are.

Pipe

busdriver12

Perhaps you guys could consider agreeing to disagree, and decide not to derail a thread by getting personal.

Just a request.

Rock

I went and reviewed the ALPA voting procedures manual because I had the same questions you did. ALPA hires a contractor to collect and certify our votes. There is an ALPA oversight board, but they have no direct role in the vote collecting or tabulating process. And you are correct, we can change our vote which adds significant time to the information digesting process.
As far as circular firing squad...I think it goes beyond "throw out the bums". Even from the MEC, there have been letters and statements that transcend a simple discussion of pros and cons. Way too much emotion. And the anger vector seems to be heading in the wrong direction. Regarding what is said on this website...well, I'm on record as saying APC is far more useful for entertainment than it is for accurate information. But there is an undercurrent of anger being expressed here, and most of it is directed at our current MEC. The latest accusation is that they have committed fraud with their travel accounts and should be audited. Heck, it has been just over three weeks since we got to see the whole TA. In that time we've gone from "My MEC speaks for me" to "Throw their asses in jail". So yeah, if I were negotiating for the company at this point, I'd be taking a seat in a dark corner while we kick the crap out of our negotiating team for handing us a "s*#$ball turd" of a TA.

The Walrus

It is what it is.

FDXLAG

He started it.

Seriously, I have not tried to convert anyone. I will be perfectly happy if Pipe votes no. I will be fine if the majority votes no. My business decision is yes is the right vote for me. Your may be different, I can live with that.

mcdbirdman

Great post Albie. Finally someone with more than "I don't like this let's vote it down" mentality. The vote on this TA is not whether you like or dislike the TA. We are voting on whether we can FORCE the company to re engage and give us better. Will we have more leverage in 2016 than we did in 2015? Will the crew force be more united in 2016 than it was in 2015. Answer those questions before you vote and then vote accordingly.

Viper446

So increased compensation, thats really a COLA, to fund issues we should be compensated for, health care, retirement? Hope of a side letter, LOA, to fix retirement, when the company and Union, have had since 2006 to come up with a plan. Ambiguous TA language. If this TA passes, its everyone for themselves. With the huge numbers of guys who will retire under this potentially 8-9 yr contract, pilots will be flying their butt off to fund their retirement. Manning issues will be solved by the next contract and our opportunity for a decent TA will be gone. The crew force has said pay isn't an issue and it isn't. But work rules and lack of a retirement fix are. If there are potential solutions to the retirement issue, they should be offered up now. The Union stance that the company just can't fix the A plan is unacceptable. There are options. Freeze the A plan, increase the B fund. Give stock to a retiring pilot based on years of service with a minimun gaurenteed stock sell back price.

max8222

Viper, I guess you have missed the fact that the federal gov caps our B Fund amount so increasing the B fund for many will do nothing . A cash over cap would have to be agreed on.aslo run the numbers on how much moneyit takes to replace $130k annually. You cannot get there from here with out reasonable gains or you have thirty years to do it. Now if they want to let people make a choice on what they want that is fine. You made the choice you get to live with it.

So increased compensation, thats really a COLA, to fund issues we should be compensated for, health care, retirement? Hope of a side letter, LOA, to fix retirement, when the company and Union, have had since 2006 to come up with a plan. Ambiguous TA language. If this TA passes, its everyone for themselves. With the huge numbers of guys who will retire under this potentially 8-9 yr contract, pilots will be flying their butt off to fund their retirement. Manning issues will be solved by the next contract and our opportunity for a decent TA will be gone. The crew force has said pay isn't an issue and it isn't. But work rules and lack of a retirement fix are. If there are potential solutions to the retirement issue, they should be offered up now. The Union stance that the company just can't fix the A plan is unacceptable. There are options. Freeze the A plan, increase the B fund. Give stock to a retiring pilot based on years of service with a minimun gaurenteed stock sell back price.[/QUOTE]