Bgood

We voted No last time, so no, not for just anything. And I will always choose union over company, so let's not make it start to seem like we should work against our own union. We'll have our problems and change out union leaders, but never forget the company is happy when we fight against each other.

Stay united, and work out our own issues over time.

Boomer

We’re only three days in and we’re already getting the hard-sell from the MEC. They are the ones who are siding with the company on this one. I want them to represent the pilot group, not the TA.

Bgood

I agree I can see the sell. And I am actually leaning No again, but lets sort out our squabbles when the time comes and not be divided in our union, it will not help us. CK can help with that unity by stepping aside but right now he's not and this is what we have.

Boomer

And I am saying that the MEC needs to understand that we won’t blindly vote for everything they put in front of us.

I don’t know how anyone could read my post and get from it that I’m saying we should be divided.

Unless maybe they believe that a NO vote on LOA 17 means you’re against the union…?

Bgood

The words you used originally, are those we would use when we are talking about the company. Read it over and tell me if that's not what one would say to the company. Doesn't sound like we are all one union.

I'll replace MEC with company and let ya read.

"So if we vote YES for the AIP, the [Company] will know we’ll vote YES for just about anything.

That’s not a lesson I want them to learn"

Boomer

I see where you’re coming from, but I would turn your own point around and ask you the same thing. If the company and the MEC are both pushing us to vote for the AIP, that should send up your red flags.

Just like the first time around with LOA 13, the MEC memos and company memos are interchangeable, like they’re written by the same author. Almost as if they’re on the same side.

The reason we’re having a vote is because there are two sides to the issue, and both sides have pros and cons. To have the MEC exaggerate the pros and try to obscure the cons is unacceptable.

BeatNavy

Remember last time, when the same thing happened with 13, and they both said it was the best deal for us and the best we could get, and all the B6ALPA and ALPA National “experts” (E&FA) told us we had to vote yes, and any other vote besides was just because we weren’t educated on the issues? Yeah, I don’t, and won’t, ever trust B6ALPA sell jobs again. The more they sell it, the harder a no vote I become.

Boomer

The company thinks we’re worth 3%.
The MEC thinks we’re worth 3%.

The company says this is the last best offer.
The MEC says this is the last best offer.

The company says we should vote in favor of LOA 17 and not take chances with arbitration.
The MEC says we should vote in favor of LOA 17 and not take chances with arbitration.

The company says the scope protections offered in LOA 17 are sufficient.
The MEC says the scope protections offered in LOA are sufficient.

Do you understand why I use the terms “company” and “MEC” interchangeably when talking about LOA 17? I still don’t agree that this constitutes “dividing the union”.

BeatNavy

Well, when a company lackey is the MEC chairman, this is what happens.

todd1200

I voted “No” on the last one and was leaning “Yes” on this one based on my understanding of the process from here, particularly the memo from the arbitrator. Doing my best to read between the lines, he seems to be saying, if we put it back in his lap, he will find the company did violate our CBA and order a cease and desist on all FC to FC and FC to international codeshares. Then he will determine the amount of monetary damages due to the pilot group based on the harm that was caused. Since the NEA has led to growth, it’s been a net positive for the pilot group, therefore no harm and no damages. I believe his comments about the pilots sharing in the revenue are based on our relaxing 1.F.7 and 1.F.8. I see no way that he would issue a cease and desist and then give us a share in the revenue that we made allowance for—because that revenue would have ceased.

At the same time, the apparent inability of ALPA leadership to communicate any downside to the LOA makes me uncomfortable and I wonder what risks are being overlooked? I wouldn’t invest in a company that put “None” in the Risk Factors section of their 10k. There are always negatives and the important thing is to recognize and mitigate them, not pretend they’re not there. This pushes me back closer to a “No” vote.