Originally Posted by Nevets

Yeah, its like the MCD issue. The company has no intent on complying with it. Sometimes they do that because THEY feel that there is no other way of doing it knowing full well there will be a grievance and deal with it there. A lot of times its a cop out and sometimes its a business decision because of practicality. I don't believe that any of these instances are because they are purposely trying to step all over the pilots or for any other malicicious intent such as trying to lower morale like many other managements do so often. In the end, sometimes unfortunately for us, their decision to not comply with a certain part of the contract and dealing with it through the grievance process instead is working within the system.



Like I said, it can be anything. It doesn't necesarily have to be monetary or have to be able to undo whats been done. It just needs to make the pilots whole. The MEC decides what constitutes what making the pilots whole means. And yes, there are many no-cost contract improvements that can be made now



The truth is that the company will violate the contract from time to time. Sometimes its because certain people don't understand the contract and sometimes because management has made a calculated business decision. I think in the end, the company wants to do the right thing and that usually plays a role in settling some of the greivances.

Originally Posted by dojetdriver

Enjoy that kool aid man, not not much else I can say.

Originally Posted by Nevets

I don't mind you calling it kool aid or bananas for all I care. But it is reality.

Originally Posted by Nevets

And yes, there are many no-cost contract improvements that can be made now

Originally Posted by dojetdriver

Like I said, enjoy.

I noticed something else;



If this were true, how come the MEC didn't ask for it on LOA9? You KNOW our guys were screaming for something in return for the money the company wanted.

I'm not sure which reality you live in to make a statement like this.

Originally Posted by Nevets

I agree with you and pushed for this. The argument against it was that they didn't want to muddy the vote and possibly have it fail because of other issues people didn't like.

Originally Posted by Nevets

In other words, the TA vote was going to be on only things germane to the concession. That is why only one work rule change was included in it.

Originally Posted by Nevets

Again, if you ask, you would get the reality of the situation. You and I may not agree with it but at least we would know why certain decisions were made. I rather know the reality of the kool aid rather than just be disgruntled over something I'm assuming about.

Originally Posted by dojetdriver

I'll REPEAT it, you KNOW our guys were screaming for something in return. I don't really see how no cost contract improvements would have any impact on the vote failing.



The ONLY thing germane to the concession was just that, we TOOK a concession with NOTHING in return. Sorry to break it to you, but we missed a big opportunity there.

Originally Posted by dojetdriver

Look at your other posts, you are making A LOT of assumptions. Like I said, I admire your optimism, but you seem to look at this whole thing through rose colored glasses. I'm not really sure you have enough experience going through this type of thing to get the true reality. You're giving the company too much credit that they will do the "right thing".

I'm not sure where you've been, they haven't been doing that lately.