Never take the first offer.
11-14-2012, 07:54 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 840
Never take the first offer.
It looks like all of the "oh my Gods" are out of the way. Now let's talk turkey. That being said, I'm a 2005 CAL Hire currently on mil leave. I hold 777 FO at EWR. Here's my take.
It's called negotiations. If you take the first offer, you lose. Jeff doesn't expect this to pass. He expects us to return it with a "no" and he'll send the real offer. Please don't fall for "Car Salesman 101" tactics. I'm also realistic. We won't get everything we want. Here is my opinion. Please tell me where I'm wrong.
Vote no.
Tell the reps we want these things fixed in the contract they wrote.
1. Pay rates have to be adjusted to be at least ABOVE the current Delta contract for 2013 and beyond. Not limited to that though.
2. Furloughs from both airlines get full credit for furlough time. This will keep our Pilot group together. It's a divisive line that's important to a small group of guys. Don't let it divide us forever.
3. Scope. I used to be a "hell no" to anything over 50 type of guy.
After a lot of thought, I'm not sure we can keep it if it goes to a arbitrator. Here's why. At CAL, we don't have 50 seat scope. They can fly unlimited 50 seat jets and unlimited larger seat turboprops. UAL lost their scope under bankruptcy. My goal in the long run would be to capture all flying under the UAL brand into our pay rates. Lofty. I don't think that will happen on this contract. I'm willing to stand the line as long as possible, but I think we'll lose this battle.
4. Lump sum is not enough. It needs to be increased by at least 50% on both sides. I'm happy with the percentage allocated to each MEC.
5. We need to adjust the work rules in the reserve section. I bid reserve for a long time when I lived in Houston. I did it because the QOL was great on the 756 on reserve if you lived in domicile. In the contract they have the ability to "double pump" reserves still. I.E. get in at 6 am and depart at 7 pm same night. Some of these rules need to be carefully reviewed again to prevent this kind of B.S. I should also say, I'm not bidding reserve when I get back, so this is not a personal issue for me.
6. The ISL will take care of itself later. Most will stay on their equipment, make more money, and quality of life will be better than today. Nobody should win big or lose big. It's a battle among us though, so tell management to mind there business. Let's not put our garbage in the streets or worry about it until after we've kicked Jeff in the robin's eggs. We're professionals.
I think CAL gains some good work rules, and UAL starts getting some pay back they've lost through years of horrible management. We have a good start to a contract. The MEC did their best. We won't get everything we want. If we can get most of it, we should take it. However, we are not there yet for UAL or CAL.
Send it back with a NO and watch what happens. Remember, it's business for them. It's a little more personal for us as we sit in the pits together for the next 30 years. Vote for each other and yourself with a good balance for both and we'll get this done and still be buds. But either way, NO on the first.
Stick together in the fight. Cheers.
Your opinion.......
It's called negotiations. If you take the first offer, you lose. Jeff doesn't expect this to pass. He expects us to return it with a "no" and he'll send the real offer. Please don't fall for "Car Salesman 101" tactics. I'm also realistic. We won't get everything we want. Here is my opinion. Please tell me where I'm wrong.
Vote no.
Tell the reps we want these things fixed in the contract they wrote.
1. Pay rates have to be adjusted to be at least ABOVE the current Delta contract for 2013 and beyond. Not limited to that though.
2. Furloughs from both airlines get full credit for furlough time. This will keep our Pilot group together. It's a divisive line that's important to a small group of guys. Don't let it divide us forever.
3. Scope. I used to be a "hell no" to anything over 50 type of guy.
After a lot of thought, I'm not sure we can keep it if it goes to a arbitrator. Here's why. At CAL, we don't have 50 seat scope. They can fly unlimited 50 seat jets and unlimited larger seat turboprops. UAL lost their scope under bankruptcy. My goal in the long run would be to capture all flying under the UAL brand into our pay rates. Lofty. I don't think that will happen on this contract. I'm willing to stand the line as long as possible, but I think we'll lose this battle.
4. Lump sum is not enough. It needs to be increased by at least 50% on both sides. I'm happy with the percentage allocated to each MEC.
5. We need to adjust the work rules in the reserve section. I bid reserve for a long time when I lived in Houston. I did it because the QOL was great on the 756 on reserve if you lived in domicile. In the contract they have the ability to "double pump" reserves still. I.E. get in at 6 am and depart at 7 pm same night. Some of these rules need to be carefully reviewed again to prevent this kind of B.S. I should also say, I'm not bidding reserve when I get back, so this is not a personal issue for me.
6. The ISL will take care of itself later. Most will stay on their equipment, make more money, and quality of life will be better than today. Nobody should win big or lose big. It's a battle among us though, so tell management to mind there business. Let's not put our garbage in the streets or worry about it until after we've kicked Jeff in the robin's eggs. We're professionals.
I think CAL gains some good work rules, and UAL starts getting some pay back they've lost through years of horrible management. We have a good start to a contract. The MEC did their best. We won't get everything we want. If we can get most of it, we should take it. However, we are not there yet for UAL or CAL.
Send it back with a NO and watch what happens. Remember, it's business for them. It's a little more personal for us as we sit in the pits together for the next 30 years. Vote for each other and yourself with a good balance for both and we'll get this done and still be buds. But either way, NO on the first.
Stick together in the fight. Cheers.
Your opinion.......
11-14-2012, 07:58 AM
#2
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 60
Good post, we also need to add an automatic pay increase each year at the end of the contract...something that hurts, like 5% annually to give the company some sort of incentive to get a new contract done on time. This is an EASY NO vote.
11-14-2012, 08:10 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 840
Originally Posted by tmac3333
Good post, we also need to add an automatic pay increase each year at the end of the contract...something that hurts, like 5% annually to give the company some sort of incentive to get a new contract done on time. This is an EASY NO vote.
11-14-2012, 08:12 AM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: B777
Posts: 586
Originally Posted by reCALcitrant
It looks like all of the "oh my Gods" are out of the way. Now let's talk turkey. That being said, I'm a 2005 CAL Hire currently on mil leave. I hold 777 FO at EWR. Here's my take.
It's called negotiations. If you take the first offer, you lose. Jeff doesn't expect this to pass. He expects us to return it with a "no" and he'll send the real offer. Please don't fall for "Car Salesman 101" tactics. I'm also realistic. We won't get everything we want. Here is my opinion. Please tell me where I'm wrong.
Vote no.
Tell the reps we want these things fixed in the contract they wrote.
1. Pay rates have to be adjusted to be at least ABOVE the current Delta contract for 2013 and beyond. Not limited to that though.
2. Furloughs from both airlines get full credit for furlough time. This will keep our Pilot group together. It's a divisive line that's important to a small group of guys. Don't let it divide us forever.
3. Scope. I used to be a "hell no" to anything over 50 type of guy.
After a lot of thought, I'm not sure we can keep it if it goes to a arbitrator. Here's why. At CAL, we don't have 50 seat scope. They can fly unlimited 50 seat jets and unlimited larger seat turboprops. UAL lost their scope under bankruptcy. My goal in the long run would be to capture all flying under the UAL brand into our pay rates. Lofty. I don't think that will happen on this contract. I'm willing to stand the line as long as possible, but I think we'll lose this battle.
4. Lump sum is not enough. It needs to be increased by at least 50% on both sides. I'm happy with the percentage allocated to each MEC.
5. We need to adjust the work rules in the reserve section. I bid reserve for a long time when I lived in Houston. I did it because the QOL was great on the 756 on reserve if you lived in domicile. In the contract they have the ability to "double pump" reserves still. I.E. get in at 6 am and depart at 7 pm same night. Some of these rules need to be carefully reviewed again to prevent this kind of B.S. I should also say, I'm not bidding reserve when I get back, so this is not a personal issue for me.
6. The ISL will take care of itself later. Most will stay on their equipment, make more money, and quality of life will be better than today. Nobody should win big or lose big. It's a battle among us though, so tell management to mind there business. Let's not put our garbage in the streets or worry about it until after we've kicked Jeff in the robin's eggs. We're professionals.
I think CAL gains some good work rules, and UAL starts getting some pay back they've lost through years of horrible management. We have a good start to a contract. The MEC did their best. We won't get everything we want. If we can get most of it, we should take it. However, we are not there yet for UAL or CAL.
Send it back with a NO and watch what happens. Remember, it's business for them. It's a little more personal for us as we sit in the pits together for the next 30 years. Vote for each other and yourself with a good balance for both and we'll get this done and still be buds. But either way, NO on the first.
Stick together in the fight. Cheers.
Your opinion.......
It's called negotiations. If you take the first offer, you lose. Jeff doesn't expect this to pass. He expects us to return it with a "no" and he'll send the real offer. Please don't fall for "Car Salesman 101" tactics. I'm also realistic. We won't get everything we want. Here is my opinion. Please tell me where I'm wrong.
Vote no.
Tell the reps we want these things fixed in the contract they wrote.
1. Pay rates have to be adjusted to be at least ABOVE the current Delta contract for 2013 and beyond. Not limited to that though.
2. Furloughs from both airlines get full credit for furlough time. This will keep our Pilot group together. It's a divisive line that's important to a small group of guys. Don't let it divide us forever.
3. Scope. I used to be a "hell no" to anything over 50 type of guy.
After a lot of thought, I'm not sure we can keep it if it goes to a arbitrator. Here's why. At CAL, we don't have 50 seat scope. They can fly unlimited 50 seat jets and unlimited larger seat turboprops. UAL lost their scope under bankruptcy. My goal in the long run would be to capture all flying under the UAL brand into our pay rates. Lofty. I don't think that will happen on this contract. I'm willing to stand the line as long as possible, but I think we'll lose this battle.
4. Lump sum is not enough. It needs to be increased by at least 50% on both sides. I'm happy with the percentage allocated to each MEC.
5. We need to adjust the work rules in the reserve section. I bid reserve for a long time when I lived in Houston. I did it because the QOL was great on the 756 on reserve if you lived in domicile. In the contract they have the ability to "double pump" reserves still. I.E. get in at 6 am and depart at 7 pm same night. Some of these rules need to be carefully reviewed again to prevent this kind of B.S. I should also say, I'm not bidding reserve when I get back, so this is not a personal issue for me.
6. The ISL will take care of itself later. Most will stay on their equipment, make more money, and quality of life will be better than today. Nobody should win big or lose big. It's a battle among us though, so tell management to mind there business. Let's not put our garbage in the streets or worry about it until after we've kicked Jeff in the robin's eggs. We're professionals.
I think CAL gains some good work rules, and UAL starts getting some pay back they've lost through years of horrible management. We have a good start to a contract. The MEC did their best. We won't get everything we want. If we can get most of it, we should take it. However, we are not there yet for UAL or CAL.
Send it back with a NO and watch what happens. Remember, it's business for them. It's a little more personal for us as we sit in the pits together for the next 30 years. Vote for each other and yourself with a good balance for both and we'll get this done and still be buds. But either way, NO on the first.
Stick together in the fight. Cheers.
Your opinion.......
You get it 100% spot on! It's about all of us!
11-14-2012, 08:21 AM
#5
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Originally Posted by reCALcitrant
It looks like all of the "oh my Gods" are out of the way. Now let's talk turkey. That being said, I'm a 2005 CAL Hire currently on mil leave. I hold 777 FO at EWR. Here's my take.
It's called negotiations. If you take the first offer, you lose. Jeff doesn't expect this to pass. He expects us to return it with a "no" and he'll send the real offer. Please don't fall for "Car Salesman 101" tactics. I'm also realistic. We won't get everything we want. Here is my opinion. Please tell me where I'm wrong.
Vote no.
Tell the reps we want these things fixed in the contract they wrote.
1. Pay rates have to be adjusted to be at least ABOVE the current Delta contract for 2013 and beyond. Not limited to that though.
2. Furloughs from both airlines get full credit for furlough time. This will keep our Pilot group together. It's a divisive line that's important to a small group of guys. Don't let it divide us forever.
3. Scope. I used to be a "hell no" to anything over 50 type of guy.
After a lot of thought, I'm not sure we can keep it if it goes to a arbitrator. Here's why. At CAL, we don't have 50 seat scope. They can fly unlimited 50 seat jets and unlimited larger seat turboprops. UAL lost their scope under bankruptcy. My goal in the long run would be to capture all flying under the UAL brand into our pay rates. Lofty. I don't think that will happen on this contract. I'm willing to stand the line as long as possible, but I think we'll lose this battle.
4. Lump sum is not enough. It needs to be increased by at least 50% on both sides. I'm happy with the percentage allocated to each MEC.
5. We need to adjust the work rules in the reserve section. I bid reserve for a long time when I lived in Houston. I did it because the QOL was great on the 756 on reserve if you lived in domicile. In the contract they have the ability to "double pump" reserves still. I.E. get in at 6 am and depart at 7 pm same night. Some of these rules need to be carefully reviewed again to prevent this kind of B.S. I should also say, I'm not bidding reserve when I get back, so this is not a personal issue for me.
6. The ISL will take care of itself later. Most will stay on their equipment, make more money, and quality of life will be better than today. Nobody should win big or lose big. It's a battle among us though, so tell management to mind there business. Let's not put our garbage in the streets or worry about it until after we've kicked Jeff in the robin's eggs. We're professionals.
I think CAL gains some good work rules, and UAL starts getting some pay back they've lost through years of horrible management. We have a good start to a contract. The MEC did their best. We won't get everything we want. If we can get most of it, we should take it. However, we are not there yet for UAL or CAL.
Send it back with a NO and watch what happens. Remember, it's business for them. It's a little more personal for us as we sit in the pits together for the next 30 years. Vote for each other and yourself with a good balance for both and we'll get this done and still be buds. But either way, NO on the first.
Stick together in the fight. Cheers.
Your opinion.......
It's called negotiations. If you take the first offer, you lose. Jeff doesn't expect this to pass. He expects us to return it with a "no" and he'll send the real offer. Please don't fall for "Car Salesman 101" tactics. I'm also realistic. We won't get everything we want. Here is my opinion. Please tell me where I'm wrong.
Vote no.
Tell the reps we want these things fixed in the contract they wrote.
1. Pay rates have to be adjusted to be at least ABOVE the current Delta contract for 2013 and beyond. Not limited to that though.
2. Furloughs from both airlines get full credit for furlough time. This will keep our Pilot group together. It's a divisive line that's important to a small group of guys. Don't let it divide us forever.
3. Scope. I used to be a "hell no" to anything over 50 type of guy.
After a lot of thought, I'm not sure we can keep it if it goes to a arbitrator. Here's why. At CAL, we don't have 50 seat scope. They can fly unlimited 50 seat jets and unlimited larger seat turboprops. UAL lost their scope under bankruptcy. My goal in the long run would be to capture all flying under the UAL brand into our pay rates. Lofty. I don't think that will happen on this contract. I'm willing to stand the line as long as possible, but I think we'll lose this battle.
4. Lump sum is not enough. It needs to be increased by at least 50% on both sides. I'm happy with the percentage allocated to each MEC.
5. We need to adjust the work rules in the reserve section. I bid reserve for a long time when I lived in Houston. I did it because the QOL was great on the 756 on reserve if you lived in domicile. In the contract they have the ability to "double pump" reserves still. I.E. get in at 6 am and depart at 7 pm same night. Some of these rules need to be carefully reviewed again to prevent this kind of B.S. I should also say, I'm not bidding reserve when I get back, so this is not a personal issue for me.
6. The ISL will take care of itself later. Most will stay on their equipment, make more money, and quality of life will be better than today. Nobody should win big or lose big. It's a battle among us though, so tell management to mind there business. Let's not put our garbage in the streets or worry about it until after we've kicked Jeff in the robin's eggs. We're professionals.
I think CAL gains some good work rules, and UAL starts getting some pay back they've lost through years of horrible management. We have a good start to a contract. The MEC did their best. We won't get everything we want. If we can get most of it, we should take it. However, we are not there yet for UAL or CAL.
Send it back with a NO and watch what happens. Remember, it's business for them. It's a little more personal for us as we sit in the pits together for the next 30 years. Vote for each other and yourself with a good balance for both and we'll get this done and still be buds. But either way, NO on the first.
Stick together in the fight. Cheers.
Your opinion.......
While each of us have our own thoughts on whether this TA is "good enough", and if not, what needs to be improved before we would vote yes, I do not necessarily agree with the title of your post. One need look no further than Airtran's deal with SWA to see that it is entirely possible that the first offer is the best offer. Is that the case here? Don't know. Question for the roadshow for sure.
What I DO know is that careful consideration should be given before voting "yes" OR "no". We are taught as pilots to not make major decisions with emotion, or without all the information. Reading the contract, attending a roadshow, and talking to reps/SME's/NC members should be the minimum that each of us commit to before making a final decision.
For example: The issue that I hear most frequently being brought up as the "no" vote trigger is retro. Full retro or "NO" is the battle cry that I've read on here frequently. We are not even at 50% retro at this point, so that should be an easy decision correct? Well... consider this. From what I've read in the Q and A section on the contract website, $400 million is 4x larger than any other retro payout EVER. So what you say? Well, it's not what YOU see as fair. It's about what the NMB says is fair. Are they willing to release us if we demand nothing less than the $1.2 billion we are owed? Again, a question for the roadshow. (I already have gotten an answer from my rep on this). Let's say we fight this battle for another 6 months, and then settle on a new number. How much higher does that number have to be to then make up for the 15-40% payraise that we have NOT been collecting for the past 6 months? What about the 16% B/C fund that we have been losing out on that whole 6 months as well?
I see retro comparisons to AMR who is set to get $100k or so per pilot in equity. That's ridiculous. Apples to oranges. One would have to go back and figure out how much we got in the claim sale plus bond distribution when we went through Ch11 to truly compare how we did.
I'm certainly not saying that this contract is good enough to vote in. It's definitely not a home run. I'd say it's a solid double after reading the contract comparison worksheets. Is that good enough? Can we do better by turning it down? We should each avail ourselves of all the information available and THEN make an informed decision. Just my opinion.
11-14-2012, 09:08 AM
#7
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: 756 Left Side
Posts: 1,629
Originally Posted by gettinbumped
I do not necessarily agree with the title of your post. One need look no further than Airtran's deal with SWA to see that it is entirely possible that the first offer is the best offer. Is that the case here? Don't know. Question for the roadshow for sure.
The American Pilots made a stand.. also made some changes within their own Union, didn't do a work action- merely flew their Contract and put Safety at the highest level. Look what happened. They did see a 2nd offer that is better than the LBFO.
[Not advocating ANY Work Action.. I've always believed in Flying The Contract]
Originally Posted by gettinbumped
We are taught as pilots to not make major decisions with emotion, or without all the information. Reading the contract, attending a roadshow, and talking to reps/SME's/NC members should be the minimum that each of us commit to before making a final decision.
This TA shows us what the company thinks of us, and what our own Union feels we're willing to accept.
Originally Posted by gettinbumped
From what I've read in the Q and A section on the contract website, $400 million is 4x larger than any other retro payout EVER. So what you say? Well, it's not what YOU see as fair. It's about what the NMB says is fair. Are they willing to release us if we demand nothing less than the $1.2 billion we are owed? Again, a question for the roadshow. (I already have gotten an answer from my rep on this). Let's say we fight this battle for another 6 months, and then settle on a new number. How much higher does that number have to be to then make up for the 15-40% payraise that we have NOT been collecting for the past 6 months? What about the 16% B/C fund that we have been losing out on that whole 6 months as well?
If you're owed 1.2 Billion.. then it's up to the Union to explain that to the NMB.
It's also up to the Union to show the Company and the NMB the resolve of the pilot group to get what we deserve.
[99% Strike Vote?!]
Remember "The Loan is Due".. what happened to that?
As a Continental Pilot, I know what I'm owed for the past four years. Every Pilot should now. It's simple. Take the hours you flew, times what your were paid. The do the same with Delta Rates. The difference is the Loan. And that doesn't include missed B Fund, lost days off, rolled days, double pumps, lost International override, coach crew rest seats, etc...
$400 million sounds like a big amount. And it is... but not when you compare it to the amount truly owed.
Our pay rates may look great to an RJ Pilot.. or someone working for a lower tier airline.
But that is not us! We are "suppose" to be a World Class Leading Airline?! Not by this contract~
Originally Posted by gettinbumped
I see retro comparisons to AMR who is set to get $100k or so per pilot in equity. That's ridiculous. Apples to oranges. One would have to go back and figure out how much we got in the claim sale plus bond distribution when we went through Ch11 to truly compare how we did.
I'm certainly not saying that this contract is good enough to vote in. It's definitely not a home run. I'd say it's a solid double after reading the contract comparison worksheets. Is that good enough? Can we do better by turning it down? We should each avail ourselves of all the information available and THEN make an informed decision. Just my opinion.
I'm certainly not saying that this contract is good enough to vote in. It's definitely not a home run. I'd say it's a solid double after reading the contract comparison worksheets. Is that good enough? Can we do better by turning it down? We should each avail ourselves of all the information available and THEN make an informed decision. Just my opinion.
I have always said that I would Vote NO based on Delta Scope coming here.. because, as a Continental Pilot- that is a concession.
But I also knew that Delta and ALPA National had shifted the line on RJ's (of which, I disagree).
But then to see the leaked payscales, and the Retro/Lump Sum hold true... NO.
But again, I expected that IF the rumors were true.. EVERYTHING else had to be a home run.
This is a bunt. Not a Double, not a foul ball.. a bunt.
Motch
NO
11-14-2012, 11:09 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,530
Originally Posted by gettinbumped
For example: The issue that I hear most frequently being brought up as the "no" vote trigger is retro. Full retro or "NO" is the battle cry that I've read on here frequently. We are not even at 50% retro at this point, so that should be an easy decision correct? Well... consider this. From what I've read in the Q and A section on the contract website, $400 million is 4x larger than any other retro payout EVER. So what you say? Well, it's not what YOU see as fair. It's about what the NMB says is fair. Are they willing to release us if we demand nothing less than the $1.2 billion we are owed? Again, a question for the roadshow. (I already have gotten an answer from my rep on this). Let's say we fight this battle for another 6 months, and then settle on a new number. How much higher does that number have to be to then make up for the 15-40% payraise that we have NOT been collecting for the past 6 months? What about the 16% B/C fund that we have been losing out on that whole 6 months as well?
11-14-2012, 11:25 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
I have no problem with any of you voting no or yes, but let's get the terminology straight here, this is NOT the "first" offer!
This TA is a product of a combined effort by both LUAL and LCAL spanning over three plus years. There have been first offers, second offers and more in this multi-year process leading up what you have before you. Additionally you are being deceptive and disingenuous by representing this TA as a "first offer" to the casual reader of this thread.
Is it the LAST offer? that is the question you should be asking. By voting NO will UCH come up with a better offer, a possible last offer prior to being released?
Play your hand, which is a vote on the whole TA, and see what happens.
As one of my reps said he will NOT discuss or debate single issues with pilots, because all of us have one or two. Why? Because neither he nor the pilots can send back the contract to "fix" single issues at this point. He will discuss how they decided to vote YES at the MEC level for the contact as a whole and then let us decide our vote.
This isn't our "first offer" nor is it the first rodeo.
This TA is a product of a combined effort by both LUAL and LCAL spanning over three plus years. There have been first offers, second offers and more in this multi-year process leading up what you have before you. Additionally you are being deceptive and disingenuous by representing this TA as a "first offer" to the casual reader of this thread.
Is it the LAST offer? that is the question you should be asking. By voting NO will UCH come up with a better offer, a possible last offer prior to being released?
Play your hand, which is a vote on the whole TA, and see what happens.
As one of my reps said he will NOT discuss or debate single issues with pilots, because all of us have one or two. Why? Because neither he nor the pilots can send back the contract to "fix" single issues at this point. He will discuss how they decided to vote YES at the MEC level for the contact as a whole and then let us decide our vote.
This isn't our "first offer" nor is it the first rodeo.
11-14-2012, 02:54 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Hey Recal....
Great post. Except, this ain't the first offer by a long stretch. We sent in the JNC 2.5 years ago and they have been going back and forth ever since. This is the 10th or 12th offer, and our MEC decided that taking it was the best course of action by a large majority. I suspect the membership will do the same.
Sled
Great post. Except, this ain't the first offer by a long stretch. We sent in the JNC 2.5 years ago and they have been going back and forth ever since. This is the 10th or 12th offer, and our MEC decided that taking it was the best course of action by a large majority. I suspect the membership will do the same.
Sled
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
