Its absolutely required and the union has said as much.

 

I’d be starting an MEC recall. Are you kidding me?!

 

I would be very interested to read the survey questions. If it’s as you’ve characterized it, they’re not asking the more important question of whether you’ll volunteer changes to your CBA. They’re only asking how you’d like your sh!!t sandwich served to you.

 

The vote comes back “Nay”, company asks judge to void the contract, 1113, judge throws out/reduces what he needs to until $100 million is achieved or maybe more.

This thing is being rushed, Davis is playing catchup, there is no time to recall the mec. It’s 12 days of negotiation that needs to be done by oct 1. There were more “than about 2 questions” and you could leave them with your opinion at the end. The whole process is a sh:t sandwich. Plenty of people that will vote no because they’re angry at the company, mec or both and plenty that are waiting for the end result and whatever that looks like. How they vote I have no idea, we’ve all heard plenty of opinions.

It’s lots of fun on the inside, plan accordingly.

 

Ok dude, watching this on the sidelines, I think a lot of you that are angry with the MEC are missing the big picture. Do you really think the MEC wants to voluntarily shred up the CBA they fought for? Doing this survey and negotiating with the company shows the court that the union is trying to negotiate in good faith. The survey they sent you is asking how you want the concessions divided up, no? If you don't like the options presented, and the subsequent agreement they come to, you and every other pilot can vote NO. That would be your way of telling the company to pound sand. I don't know what you're trying to accomplish, but having an option in the survey to tell the company to get bent and not even engage with management won't get you anywhere with the judge. You can still all collectively tell the company to F off, but the visceral response of smashing the 'no concessions' button on a survey isn't going to be helpful to the cause.

 

If the union reps vote in a concessionary TA/LOA, and the members kill it, the only thing a judge will do is override them and activate the Union leadership agreed TA/LOA.

He’s not going to clean sheet a deal, or not include the Union leadership. Activating what Union and company leadership already agreed to is a slam dunk for a judge, why wade any further out into a mess. No judge wants to be in the weeds of a contract or risk a labor over reaction.

It’s a free no vote the members, but possibly inevitable for their future.

 

The judge’s choice is binary. He can impose the company 1113 proposal or he can reject the company’s 1113 proposal. There is no third choice letting the judge rewrite portions of the CBA as he sees best.

 

Kind of....

He can also tell the company that they are asking for too much and force them to submit a different proposal, which has happened.

 

The company’s 1113 proposal is going to be the deal they got with the Union leadership approval.

Being greedy will get it rejected. There is no reason to force labor unrest by beating down the membership and the leadership.

The company already got to play their greedy card when they asked for 100m without showing their math. Their lawyers will tell them not to get caught sandbagging a judge with a poor mouth after they agreed to a deal with union leadership.

 

Historically a bankruptcy judge almost always will protect the creditors first, then the “team members”,
aka: employees, get the table scraps.