Not only that....I have have an email in my box where he says, "I may be mistaken."

Well...yes, he is... and his false info has raised false hopes. If this TA is voted down....we no longer have a TA. The TPA is still set to expire.

 

No quite ... it doesn't say a current "tentative agreement" and it doesn't say a "ratified agreement" is says "reached a tentative agreement." The parties have reached a tenative agreement therefore managment can't terminate those provisions.

 

Why would anyone need this as a reason to turn down the TA? If UAL pilots aren't going to vote on the merits of this contract and instead vote on a collection of "what-if" scenarios than why the hell did we go through this whole ridiculously protracted process? Jeffy and Fred (and apparently Heppner and Piecrce) will always be able to provide the scare tactics, so why bother with negotiations? The communications from the United side of the ALPA house are so reminiscent of the tragic CALALPA sales job for POS02 it's scary. They all seem to be reasons why you shouldn't vote NO, not why you should vote YES. Based on the overwhelming "yes" sentiment I've been hearing from UAL guys running scared, I'm fairly certain TURD12 will pass. At least I won't have to entertain any more *****ing about CAL's work rules. You guys own this one.

 

Dude,

If you don't study history and ask "what-if" then you are doomed to make the same mistakes over and over. I don't need to work because I have made a fortune in the stock market, and I believe that is a direct result of the fact that I am a student of history and graduated from Dartmouth College as the top History Major in my class. This TA is ALL about "what-if".

"What-if" we say no what benefit do we gain? "What-if" we say "No", what is the worst case scenario? "What-if" we say yes? What changes?

If we say yes, we get better scope, we get tons of money, and all the CAL pilots get a major improvement in work rules and the UAL guys get little to no change. Vacation: you don't lose two days you gain two days because of the time accounting. Reassignment: You don't get unlimited reassignment, you get a "day off" given back meaning a whole trip with pay protection. Hotels: You don't lose ALPA control you give arguments to "neutrals" which is actually fair.

Trouble is the "knee jerk reation" is based on cursory reading of the TA and an assumption that the ALPA negotiators are idiots. Sadly this is a perfect example of how the internet is furthering "mob mentality" rather than furthering genuine discussion.

Joe

 

Coach. Take a look at what ualhvy posted above. It squarely contradicts your reading the letter of the law vs what was actually agreed to by the parties.

 

I read what he said and I am disagreeing with what ualhvy said. I've used fact to outline my arguement in the form of contractual language rebuttal. He is using an obfuscated answer to a FAQ which didn't say it was wrong ... it says "it would be a mistake to use it a reason to turn down the TA."

If the UAL-MEC comes out and says the interpretation is flat out wrong ... then I'll concede. But the MEC won't because they can't while still useing the T&PA as a fear factor to get yes votes.

 

5:45PM EST November 21. 2012 - Of all the industries likely to get clipped by the fiscal cliff, travel is probably near the top of the list.

Companies are already cutting back on business travel ahead of the scheduled Jan. 1 start of a feared combo of big tax increases and spending cuts that economists warn could cause a recession if they all occur at once.

Companies will spend $20 billion less on business travel through 2014 if the fiscal cliff happens, according to the Global Business Travel Association.

Expedia, the world's largest travel agency, says business bookings by the same clients, which exclude gains from taking customers from rivals, are down recently — they usually grow about as fast as the overall economy, CEO Dara Khosrowshahi says.