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.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

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

Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg

No, they are saying there is a plan B from the company. We can always vote it down, and the company gave them some options. Whether or not they follow through with those options is for us to guess. Is it worth it? Being the only major union at this corporation, would it be wise for them to come back and renegotiate? Could RA have Plan A, B, C, and D? I don't know. Hopefully those negotiators and professional negotiators got as much as they could and felt the deal was the best they could honestly do. That is what they are paid to do.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

If this was plain as day, the MEC should have all voted yes. They did not. Ask those Reps why they did not vote yes. They must have had a good enough reasoning not to send this thing to us with a 100% yes vote.

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.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp

Bingo.

Quality was sacrificed for expediency. The company wants it done- it is to their advantage. Time to squeeze some more out of this lemon.

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.

Originally Posted by bigbusdriver

That didn't work for all of us when the NWA MEC tried to get more during the JCBA. We all lost pay (+DC) that we are fighting to get back now using the very same failed tactic with the very same management team. They refuse to talk to me about the first JCBA TA so I have to guess what made them so bold back then when the recession was tipping over. Europe is about to crack in half and it looks like the non-political-north/south-branded-council 54 said it first-north reps would like to double down again on getting more blood from a turnip even though half of them were there for the JCBA in some form and know that it may come back the same way as 2008 with less pay and less DC. How much does it cost to say at least we fought the good fight and lost?

Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg

I would say it would cost A LOT. But, some people think they can still hit that hole-n-one, and then forget about reality all around them. This TA has plenty of improvements and a healthy pay raise in only 2 1/2 years, but to some, they want it ALL! They want the 2005 price for their house today also, because they DEMAND IT.