View Poll Results: My plan for turning this down is:
1. I know a better deal will be offered w/out Sec 6. I can point to a non-strike precedent.
6
11.76%
2. I suspect a better deal is coming soon, based on a hunch the company is bluffing.
9
17.65%
3. I hope there is a better deal coming, and I have no idea of how it's going to happen.
3
5.88%
4. I am prepared to sit tight for Section 6; I know this agreement is non-prejudicial.
33
64.71%
Voters: 51. You may not vote on this poll
NO Voter Poll - Show us the Way
06-11-2012, 05:22 PM
#41
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
Originally Posted by contrails
Clearly the company desperately wants it out of the way hence the expedited timeline so far.
So based on that, would they really want to wait 2+ years when they can just tweak a few sections and have it voted in a second time a few months later? No way.
So based on that, would they really want to wait 2+ years when they can just tweak a few sections and have it voted in a second time a few months later? No way.
06-11-2012, 05:25 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: LAX ERA
Posts: 3,457
Originally Posted by contrails
Clearly the company desperately wants it out of the way hence the expedited timeline so far.
So based on that, would they really want to wait 2+ years when they can just tweak a few sections and have it voted in a second time a few months later? No way.
So based on that, would they really want to wait 2+ years when they can just tweak a few sections and have it voted in a second time a few months later? No way.
For one thing, the company (who have spent lots of time and money fighting off other unions), won't want to show that kind of "flexibility" to non-union groups.
Trust me, there's a plan B.
Ferd
06-11-2012, 05:28 PM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
My compliments to the committed "No's": you're being pretty honest about this. So far, 61% acknowledge the choice is between this TA, and Section 6, since there is no process to open "just" the sections we want to open.
I have a lot of respect for the position that says "it's simply not enough, and I'll see you in Section 6". It's the only "No" position that seems rational, and acknowledge the situation in front of us: either you think this early deal is good enough, or you expect the later deal to more than compensate for it. I'm not that far into the "it is enough" camp, so I get it.
I have a lot of respect for the position that says "it's simply not enough, and I'll see you in Section 6". It's the only "No" position that seems rational, and acknowledge the situation in front of us: either you think this early deal is good enough, or you expect the later deal to more than compensate for it. I'm not that far into the "it is enough" camp, so I get it.
06-11-2012, 05:34 PM
#45
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by Sink r8
My compliments to the committed "No's": you're being pretty honest about this. So far, 61% acknowledge the choice is between this TA, and Section 6, since there is no process to open "just" the sections we want to open.
I have a lot of respect for the position that says "it's simply not enough, and I'll see you in Section 6". It's the only "No" position that seems rational, and acknowledge the situation in front of us: either you think this early deal is good enough, or you expect the later deal to more than compensate for it. I'm not that far into the "it is enough" camp, so I get it.
I have a lot of respect for the position that says "it's simply not enough, and I'll see you in Section 6". It's the only "No" position that seems rational, and acknowledge the situation in front of us: either you think this early deal is good enough, or you expect the later deal to more than compensate for it. I'm not that far into the "it is enough" camp, so I get it.
I read the FO Reps paper in SEA and he states that there is time and the company will come back. Money was left on the table, etc. Seems a few others say that too. I talked to a few of them and its their position that we will reengage. Since they were in the room, I just assume they are less risk adverse than others. They were all given the same info and came to different conclusions.
06-11-2012, 06:33 PM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
My own reps absolutely disagree. Regardless of who's right about whether money was left on the table, it's not on the table now, because the agreement is non-prejudicial, AND because it would be a very poor precedent for the company. As you said yourself, this deal impacts follow-on deals. It would be very unlikely, IMO, that the company would go back above and beyond what they stated was their last, best offer.
On the other hand, they could offer something worse that we'd simply vote on, like the JCBA II, or the way SW handled AirTran. I just can't believe they would be stupid enough to acknowledge they were just kidding. If Art says money was left on the table, I think he means he tied up the MEC in a week of futile debate, and the deal was sealed as details were leaked to torpedo any chance of quiet diplomacy.
Meanwhile, if your argument is to get a group cry going over spilled milk, then I'm not interested. If it's to lodge your complaints about a deal you say "is going to pass", then you're just working on internet street creds, and I'm not interested either.
Just do the honest thing, and make a call. If you think this thing needs to be turned down, say so, and please explain how you see us working through an process other than Section 6. Please spare us the hand-wringing about how "people expected more". We get it: we all expected more.
On the other hand, they could offer something worse that we'd simply vote on, like the JCBA II, or the way SW handled AirTran. I just can't believe they would be stupid enough to acknowledge they were just kidding. If Art says money was left on the table, I think he means he tied up the MEC in a week of futile debate, and the deal was sealed as details were leaked to torpedo any chance of quiet diplomacy.
Meanwhile, if your argument is to get a group cry going over spilled milk, then I'm not interested. If it's to lodge your complaints about a deal you say "is going to pass", then you're just working on internet street creds, and I'm not interested either.
Just do the honest thing, and make a call. If you think this thing needs to be turned down, say so, and please explain how you see us working through an process other than Section 6. Please spare us the hand-wringing about how "people expected more". We get it: we all expected more.
06-11-2012, 07:06 PM
#47
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
I read the FO Reps paper in SEA and he states that there is time and the company will come back. Money was left on the table, etc. Seems a few others say that too. I talked to a few of them and its their position that we will reengage. Since they were in the room, I just assume they are less risk adverse than others. They were all given the same info and came to different conclusions.
06-11-2012, 07:06 PM
#48
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by Sink r8
My own reps absolutely disagree. Regardless of who's right about whether money was left on the table, it's not on the table now, because the agreement is non-prejudicial, AND because it would be a very poor precedent for the company. As you said yourself, this deal impacts follow-on deals. It would be very unlikely, IMO, that the company would go back above and beyond what they stated was their last, best offer.
On the other hand, they could offer something worse that we'd simply vote on, like the JCBA II, or the way SW handled AirTran. I just can't believe they would be stupid enough to acknowledge they were just kidding. If Art says money was left on the table, I think he means he tied up the MEC in a week of futile debate, and the deal was sealed as details were leaked to torpedo any chance of quiet diplomacy.
Meanwhile, if your argument is to get a group cry going over spilled milk, then I'm not interested. If it's to lodge your complaints about a deal you say "is going to pass", then you're just working on internet street creds, and I'm not interested either.
Just do the honest thing, and make a call. If you think this thing needs to be turned down, say so, and please explain how you see us working through an process other than Section 6. Please spare us the hand-wringing about how "people expected more". We get it: we all expected more.
On the other hand, they could offer something worse that we'd simply vote on, like the JCBA II, or the way SW handled AirTran. I just can't believe they would be stupid enough to acknowledge they were just kidding. If Art says money was left on the table, I think he means he tied up the MEC in a week of futile debate, and the deal was sealed as details were leaked to torpedo any chance of quiet diplomacy.
Meanwhile, if your argument is to get a group cry going over spilled milk, then I'm not interested. If it's to lodge your complaints about a deal you say "is going to pass", then you're just working on internet street creds, and I'm not interested either.
Just do the honest thing, and make a call. If you think this thing needs to be turned down, say so, and please explain how you see us working through an process other than Section 6. Please spare us the hand-wringing about how "people expected more". We get it: we all expected more.
06-11-2012, 07:08 PM
#49
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
Originally Posted by Sink r8
My own reps absolutely disagree. Regardless of who's right about whether money was left on the table, it's not on the table now, because the agreement is non-prejudicial, AND because it would be a very poor precedent for the company. As you said yourself, this deal impacts follow-on deals. It would be very unlikely, IMO, that the company would go back above and beyond what they stated was their last, best offer.
On the other hand, they could offer something worse that we'd simply vote on, like the JCBA II, or the way SW handled AirTran. I just can't believe they would be stupid enough to acknowledge they were just kidding. If Art says money was left on the table, I think he means he tied up the MEC in a week of futile debate, and the deal was sealed as details were leaked to torpedo any chance of quiet diplomacy.
Meanwhile, if your argument is to get a group cry going over spilled milk, then I'm not interested. If it's to lodge your complaints about a deal you say "is going to pass", then you're just working on internet street creds, and I'm not interested either.
Just do the honest thing, and make a call. If you think this thing needs to be turned down, say so, and please explain how you see us working through an process other than Section 6. Please spare us the hand-wringing about how "people expected more". We get it: we all expected more.
On the other hand, they could offer something worse that we'd simply vote on, like the JCBA II, or the way SW handled AirTran. I just can't believe they would be stupid enough to acknowledge they were just kidding. If Art says money was left on the table, I think he means he tied up the MEC in a week of futile debate, and the deal was sealed as details were leaked to torpedo any chance of quiet diplomacy.
Meanwhile, if your argument is to get a group cry going over spilled milk, then I'm not interested. If it's to lodge your complaints about a deal you say "is going to pass", then you're just working on internet street creds, and I'm not interested either.
Just do the honest thing, and make a call. If you think this thing needs to be turned down, say so, and please explain how you see us working through an process other than Section 6. Please spare us the hand-wringing about how "people expected more". We get it: we all expected more.
You SEE THE LIGHT...... AND IT'S BEAUTIFUL!!! Maybe it's a 717 landing light?
Thank You Cheezits!
06-11-2012, 07:12 PM
#50
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
The really sad part is why there has to be a thread asking the members what THEIR plan B is. The reason this has to be discussed is because our MEC has NO plan B. It is this TA, or the great unknown. Our own MEC bureaucrats slowplay and alfaromeo have posted that we better have a plan B if we vote this down. WE better have a plan B. You would have thought the brightest legal minds that money can buy, and the most prepared MEC that's ever been would really have shown us what they can do in the first Section 6 in a decade.
It got me to thinking. Say if DPA had been voted in 6 months ago. And it was the DPA that brought this TA to the pilot group for a vote. Can you even imagine the howling from slowplay/alfaromeo/finis, etc? You can almost hear them saying: "So how do you like that DPA vote now guys? They completely ignored the survey and surrendered on scope because they were too afraid and too ill-prepared to handle a Section 6. Instead, they just caved in to the first offer before Section 6 even began..."
Bottom line is that we shouldn't be hearing these leaks from the MEC that we better vote this in because there is no plan B. It is beyond incompetent, and would never have been tolerated if DPA were representing us now. The MEC needs to step up and be adults. The MEC needs to let us and the company know that the MEC is fully prepared to re-engage with a plan if the members vote this down. Not this weak-kneed amateur BS...that management must be just LOVING right now.
Carl
It got me to thinking. Say if DPA had been voted in 6 months ago. And it was the DPA that brought this TA to the pilot group for a vote. Can you even imagine the howling from slowplay/alfaromeo/finis, etc? You can almost hear them saying: "So how do you like that DPA vote now guys? They completely ignored the survey and surrendered on scope because they were too afraid and too ill-prepared to handle a Section 6. Instead, they just caved in to the first offer before Section 6 even began..."
Bottom line is that we shouldn't be hearing these leaks from the MEC that we better vote this in because there is no plan B. It is beyond incompetent, and would never have been tolerated if DPA were representing us now. The MEC needs to step up and be adults. The MEC needs to let us and the company know that the MEC is fully prepared to re-engage with a plan if the members vote this down. Not this weak-kneed amateur BS...that management must be just LOVING right now.
Carl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
