I don't care what JP said - he gets nothing but a boot!

The NMB is a government entity and as such, has a mission statement, not a goal.
The pertinent part of the NMB’s mission statement is:

The prompt and orderly resolution of disputes arising out of the negotiation of new or revised collective bargaining agreements.

Of course their underlying goal is a successful dispute resolution, that goes without saying, not to mention the underlying pressure they are under to facilitate it based on an internal supposed 97% success rate of late.
Just as valid as facilitating a resolution however they are tasked with the obligation to define and recognize an impasse.
They have just as much responsibility to declare an impasse when it in fact exists, as they do to help find resolution.
They do not allow strikes, they do not allow work stoppages, and they do not allow lockouts. They do not allow anything.
They are supposed to declare an impasse when one exists within “some” reasonable time frame (see the word prompt in their mission) although lately (the last 30 yrs or so) they’ve been able to stretch it out to “denial of binding arbitration” as an excuse for not having “done their job”, as they see it.
If they see a release to self help as a failure, they have a personal problem. It’s all part of the process. This has become way to political, it was never intended to actually infringe on workers rights only to determine the impasse was not arbitrary.

Over many years I have had occasion to find myself at times knowing that it would be a mistake to meet with certain people alone. No matter the position of responsibility I am in, I would listen to my gut.

Got this tonight. Fairly straightforward.

*
April 28, 2012
*
Dear Fellow Pilots,
*
A question for the Pilots of United Airlines: Are you content with the pace of negotiations in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012; and would you be content if negotiations extend into 2013?

On the Tip of the Spear.
*
We are United,
*
*
Captain Jay Heppner
Chairman, United Master Executive Counci

At last week's Council 171-IAH meeting, there were L-UAL Pilots who just "showed up". There was a motion at the start of the meeting as to "LET" them stay/attend, or show them the door. Guess what???? The vote PASSED unanimously to welcome them.....as it should have.....GO FIGURE!! If this is something that's NOT going to be consistant (on BOTH sides) if the opportunity arises, then it's either one way, or the other. STOP the power play BS.

Yes Motch, I would say "Weird".

Glad you do not let any facts or evidence get in the way of your unity building :rolleyes:

I thought WE are ALL ual pilots? I am pretty sure we ALL want the same thing..an INDUSTRY LEADING CONTRACT.

Valid point, but I hope you understood the context of that comment. I was pointing out that my email question was sent to the CAL EWR Capt Rep...and I'm a UAL DCA F/O. Hence my lack of commentary and deep drilling.

And yes, I think the majority of us want the same thing. It's up to each of us to engage our LEC reps to question and offer our opinions.

I hope our MEC heard loud and clear that we are tired of sitting back and waiting for the company to hand us a contract. Our playbook is well read by management and it's time to add more plays. I applaud the AA pilots for getting outside the container and engaging directly with AAA! I bet THAT caught AA management by surprise!!! They KNEW they had the employees by the short hairs and they KNEW they had complete freedom of action! Not so much. Will the AA employees succeed? Don't know - but I do know that they are no worse off than if they sat back and waited for whatever management chose to dish out. Same here at UCH. Being on defense doesn't mean you have to hide in a foxhole waiting to get your @ss kicked! A well planned and executed defense is KEY to the inevitable offense. I won't go all Sun Tzu, but even modern strategy dictates shaping the battlefield and an active defense.

I don't know anybody at NY or on the NY UAL LEC council, but knowing the majority feel the same way I do, I find this story less than truthful. If you can get me names of the person that said no or the name of UAL pilot he was with, I willl get you a good answer. Enough of this I have a buddy that told me stuff - usually less thatn the truth.

What makes you think your truth is fact. Last I heard was you are wrong and don't have the evidence to support your position.

"Your" L-UAL ALPA NY-LEC.....If you have your doubts, how about you find out for us the validity of Motch's story and let us know? Two sides to every story as we have found out in this process.

I KNOW my facts/story that I shared above check out as "valid". The official 171 Meeting Minutes will also show the VOTE I mentioned. If that's not good enough, drop 'ol Capt Moak and email as he was there in person at the meeting as well.

Either way, if WE (both sides) want to take steps on the "line pilot" level to promote transparency at a grass roots level (because our MEC-Chair's are too busy with their Ego's and "Kock" Games), WE need to decide if LEC meeting's are OPEN or CLOSE for 'visiting' L-UA/CAL Pilots, if something that is favored, we need to make our voices heard on that topic.

I realize that NOT all meetings maybe able to foster this "open setting". If so, on those rare times, LEC's should make that KNOWN well in advance that "visitors" are not welcomed to sit in on those particular meetings......as opposed to a last minute VOTE being taken at the meeting's start to show unwelcomed visitors the door.

With Egos aside, I see allowing L-CAL/UA Pilots into each other's LEC meeting would promote a simple step towards getting more of us on the SAME page as opposed to letting the MC's drive the wedge. Honestly, I would have expected CHANGE (for the good) to start at the top.....now I have my doubts.....maybe WE (line pilots) need to remind the LEC's and the MC's they work for US.

Food for thought.....Suggestions???