Originally Posted by Scoop (Post 1201903)

Yes - I am for NO MORE LARGE RJ's along with real contract improvements - Where do I vote yes for that?

Scoop

Originally Posted by DAWGS (Post 1201843)

I don't agree. They would have 70 fewer large RJs.

As I have stated in previous post, I don't trust MGT to follow the intent of our contract as it relates to ratios and I don't believe our union will challenge MGT when they violate the intent. When the ratios go out the window, as I believe they will eventually during the life of this contract, we shrink....DCI grows. 1 event deemed beyond their control and the ratios are toast. Any protections you think we have, will be renegotiated by our union in tough times (no memrat...LOA). Trust and history being the issues that that they are, there is no other way to defend our flying other than to insist we do it. Having said that, I will not vote to outsource any jobs. We need to hold the line on big RJs. They are a direct replacement of mainline flying in this circumstance. I will not vote to make the same mistake others made previously. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst outcome or circumstance.

Originally Posted by ayecarumba (Post 1201649)

I appreciate you taking the time to post this info.

My initial inclination is still NO.

It seems the MEC is plying the adage "A bird in hand is worth 2 in the bush" with this TA being the bird and the unknown of a rejected TA being the bush.

Why is it a foregone conclusion that IF this TA is rejected that a protracted section 6 process will then unfold. Isn't that just ONE of many possibilities? If MGT was so eager to complete this 7 months early isn't it also feasible that a rejected TA could be tweaked and completed ahead of schedule as well?

I've heard it said that in business, you never accept a first offer and that if you're not willing to say "NO", then you're not really negotiating.

I guess we're at the point in the new car negotiation where the salesman says "I gotta talk to my manager." and we say the same thing and turn to our wife. ha ha.

I spoke with 1 of our LEC reps so far regarding this and he states the negotiating committee HAS said NO several times and walked away and that this was as far as they could get given that, in general, other pilot groups are not helping us gain any leverage (FedEx, UPS, UAL, AMR... forgot to ask about SWA) and that any leverage we have has been played as far MGT is concerned. The only leverage we may have remaining is a strike and that would take years of meditation to reach.

So we really are dealing with an unknown if we reject this TA and what is each of our levels of comfort facing that unknown. It is possible that a protracted section 6 may unfold. It is also possible that the current agreement may be massaged and sweetened a bit.

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscart...s/pknn542l.jpg

Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg (Post 1202049)

I love it when people say "never take the first offer from a used car salesman....". Do you think the negotiators took the first actual offer? Don't you think it took a couple days of back and forths? No, you think it was just once?

Originally Posted by Elvis90 (Post 1202051)

I think the entire pilot group holds more clout with the company than just the negotiating committee & MEC. If it's voted down between say 51-60%, the company will know that some tweaking would achieve their goal of near 51%.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1202053)

The idea of a union is that our Reps speak on our collective behalf.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1202053)

The idea of a union is that our Reps speak on our collective behalf.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1202053)

The idea of a union is that our Reps speak on our collective behalf.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1202053)

The idea of a union is that our Reps speak on our collective behalf.

Originally Posted by NuGuy (Post 1201535)

No plan B if the TA is rejected? AND THEY ADMITTED THIS IN AN OPEN MEETING?

What an abject failure of leadership.