I prefer to fly the line and just assumed no one we send to negotiate would entertain bigger outsourcing, especially fake water testing nonsense like that was. I would hope that all 12000 of us would see that for what it was and respond accordingly.

 

You understand that what management opened for wasn't a new airframe type. What they opened for was to change the seat count on their existing fleet to 80/82 seats (older CRJ-900 can only handle 80, newer ones 82).

There was never a proposal that includes the airframes that you suggest.

 

So you're willing to talk the talk, but not walk the walk? That's typical. Maybe it's not as easy as you portray it to be.

 

And that would still be dangerous IMO, as it opens the door for a 100 seat airframe configured with a 2 class 80+ seat cabin. Good job saying no to that one.

 

Jesus, you two are squabbling now? A month ago johnso29 was all "My gloopy speaks for me," and I suspect vice-verse. This TA is all brother-against-brother and crap.

 

I don't think I ever said that. Also don't take my conversation with gloopy as my opinion of this TA, or how I will vote for it. My issue is with people who continue berate the NC, yet aren't willing to do the job they do. They insult the NC's methods, when they have no idea what their job truly entails. They will talk the talk, but not walk the walk.

If someone doesn't like the TA, that's fine. Just vote NO. But stop insisting that the NC rolled over, & implying that it's so easy to do a better job.

 

Do you know? If you haven't done the job yourself then I don't really think you can say that you do.

And because you don't know you really shouldn't be chastising others for giving them a hard time based on "what the job really entails."

 

Ok. By your logic, since neither side knows, then we are both wrong. Therefore, you only strengthen my point. If you don't know how it is, you have no room to criticize.

 

Can you ladies take the personal crap to pms so the rest of us dont have to sift through cow pies to find the meat?

 

K prolly not, but you've struck me as having pretty similar views in the past...not "natural born enemies" on this T/A so to speak.

Eh, that's uncomfortably close to the "If you don't volunteer for ALPA, you can't criticize ALPA!" line of thinking you occasionally hear from unionoids. I have volunteered within ALPA. There is no such thing as criticizing from within ALPA, not publicly, because ALPA is very controlling of all communication its volunteers pass along to outsiders. Everything, no matter how trivial and uncontroversial, has to go through the lawyers, and often the full MEC admin as well. You're prohibited from posting on message boards (hmm, funny how that doesn't apply to slowplay). It's ok to disagree in private, but those who don't publicly fall in line are quickly marginalized (just watch what happens to those five reps). It's very Politburo-esque. I think it's unfair to say that just because someone is unwilling to work within that system, they have no right to disagree with the results.

You know, that's fair to a certain extent. I'm sure it's not easy to do a better job, especially when you're a pilot by trade, not a professional negotiator. I very much doubt that I, put in that position, would come up with a better TA than they did. But you know what else? In the position they were in, I would say, "OK, I'm pretty sure this is the best we can do, and the lawyers and MEC admin says its the best we can do, but it didn't come in anywhere near the survey results, so we need to confer with the assembled reps of the MEC tomorrow before announcing we have a TA and putting them in a tough spot." That would have been the right thing to do. Their decision to present the MEC with a fait accompli demonstrated loyalty to the unelected and indirectly-elected MEC administration over the directly elected reps, and that's a decision that I think is perfectly open to valid criticism.

Now, I would suggest that one's decision on the TA should probably be divorced from what you think of the process. It should stand or fall on its own merits. But after this is over, I think there needs to be a very serious discussion about the process. What you think about the process should be divorced from what you thought about the TA. In other words, don't let the Yes vs No divisions help sweep the topic back under the rug, because I think that's exactly what ALPA will try to do after the contract is settled.