Latest i heard from someone on the inside is they are hoping for the clock to start sometime in Jan.......

So, do we all think that the Co. will take this to the 12th hour, and then come up with a contract that we will accept. Only just to drag this thing longer in order to save money?

Are we to expect a retro pay, or will they show up to the table with JB pay and forget the past?

I dont know how anyone else feels, but 3 years is too long. We have lost too much money! If there is not a significant signing bonus or retro pay of at least a year I will be hesitant to vote yes...unless everything else is too good to vote no.

...and I do think this will go down to the last possible moment.

The company does not know what we will accept. Think about it, we have changed direction too many times. If they knew the MEC would ratify at the MEC level, we could probably get a deal much quicker because that removes the unknown of membership ratification. As far as I know, the MEC is 100% in support of membership ratification.

The professional negotiation advisers Spirit consults with, are likely telling them that we will turn down any contract because of our lack of consensus on ANYTHING over the last three years.

Neither the negotiations updates nor MEC updates have mentioned retro pay. I doubt that it is being considered.

"...lack of concensus..."

98% does not show a lack of concensus.

We want more pay and better retirement with out a reduction in quality of life. We also want job protections in the way of Scope. Pretty simple really.

I wasn't here for the last contract, but I've heard the rank and file complain about not having a vote. When you have pilots willing to sell out other pilots for personal gain, I would not want the power in the hands of someone else. I have asked the MEC to put their money where their mouth is and make MEMRAT the official way to do the vote, and have gotten the "Why do we need to put it down on paper, just trust us" response. We have had a history of signing things without even telling the membership, and I for one would like to see some accountability on the part of our MEC. Although, I do thing the current MEC is less apt to do this than the last one.

I was there. WE, the rank and file, voted. And the MAJORITY voted FOR it. But it's funny to hear how many people voted "against" it. (So how did it pass?) A lot of people there don't want to admit to voting for it.
Who gave you the "trust us" response? The only person I know that I can see saying that is flying somewhere else (for now- I've heard).

I'm glad to hear that everyone voted. I must have had my facts wrong, as I thought MEMRAT was not the official way to vote here. I asked several of the previous MEC to institute MEMRAT officially and was told we don't need it because they would not sign anything without consulting us first. (my "trust us" was paraphrasing). I just don't like that they can if they wanted to. I do believe they have our best interests at heart, and if we already have MEMRAT, then that's cool.

Isn't it funny how everyone can vote no on a contract and it still passes?

the context is what we will vote on (ratify) as a group. Maybe consensus was the wrong word, but with the exception of more money, I doubt that we agree on much as far as contractual goals.

Do we want Pref bid or not? Will we vote for it? (ARM is on record as saying that any contract will include PB and DP is on record as opposing it)

Are we willing to pay the price to gain airtight scope? or not?

Are we willing to trade pay for growth, or not?

The wilson center poll should get us close, but the truth is that no one knows if the group will ratify any particular TA, or not.

As such, the company will be extremely wary of making an offer, because we just might strike anyway (after all that is all we agree on as a group). Unfortunately, we are in a catch 22. If we seriously threaten a strike, we almost guarantee a strike. If we don't make a serious threat, the company ignores us.