![]() |
TA vote extension
I am trying to figure out why the UAL MEC would extend the voting and lose the clout an overwhelmingly No vote would deliver - as it did for the DAL MEC in 2015. Did the company agree to increase the overall compensation or did they say the package would have the same value? I have heard conflicting interpretations of the UAL Mgmt letter.
As an outsider it seems that extending the vote without improving the deal is just delaying the inevitable and further raising the burden on Retro pay. Scoop :confused: |
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 3463893)
I am trying to figure out why the UAL MEC would extend the voting and lose the clout an overwhelmingly No vote would deliver - as it did for the DAL MEC in 2015. Did the company agree to increase the overall compensation or did they say the package would have the same value? I have heard conflicting interpretations of the UAL Mgmt letter.
As an outsider it seems that extending the vote without improving the deal is just delaying the inevitable and further raising the burden on Retro pay. Scoop :confused: |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by Smooth at FL450
(Post 3463896)
Because their MEC also endorsed the TA and are facing recall votes and they are trying to save face?
|
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 3463893)
I am trying to figure out why the UAL MEC would extend the voting and lose the clout an overwhelmingly No vote would deliver - as it did for the DAL MEC in 2015. Did the company agree to increase the overall compensation or did they say the package would have the same value? I have heard conflicting interpretations of the UAL Mgmt letter.
As an outsider it seems that extending the vote without improving the deal is just delaying the inevitable and further raising the burden on Retro pay. Scoop :confused: The real information in the letter was that they wouldn't sue the union or seek TRO or run to the NMB if we suspended or delayed voting for 3 months while asking for more. Anyway, when someone offers more its probably a good idea to see 'how much more' especially when they have to come back in 90 days vs the 8mo-1y to start over would take... |
Originally Posted by ReadyRsv
(Post 3463946)
Anyway, when someone offers more its probably a good idea to see 'how much more' especially when they have to come back in 90 days vs the 8mo-1y to start over would take...
|
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 3463893)
I am trying to figure out why the UAL MEC would extend the voting and lose the clout an overwhelmingly No vote would deliver - as it did for the DAL MEC in 2015. Did the company agree to increase the overall compensation or did they say the package would have the same value? I have heard conflicting interpretations of the UAL Mgmt letter.
As an outsider it seems that extending the vote without improving the deal is just delaying the inevitable and further raising the burden on Retro pay. Scoop :confused: |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:00 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands