|
Originally Posted by awax
(Post 1857770)
Yet the MEC unanimously rejected the LOA, don't you find that curious? .
No, I don't have a problem with a unanimous rejection. I also don't have a problem with a unanimous acceptance. The issues get discussed, they get debated and they there is a decision. That is the process. There is no other constitutionally acceptable method. If the company doesn't get their way, they will do one of two things: 1. Leak it and bypass the MEC 2. Negotiate directly with the pilots and bypass the MEC The MEC needs to have balls and stand their ground based on logical and purposeful positions. If the company is serious and/or sincere, then they will re-attack it from another angle or sweeten the pot. Different reps will reject something for different reasons. I've seen things unanimously rejected for 9 different reasons. 9 different points of view with similar but different concerns. It's cool. |
Originally Posted by APC225
(Post 1857723)
I'm glad the union said enough already.
That's probably the reason right there. If ALPA can't get compliance on language they have already negotiated, and paid for..... then it would not be a wise expenditure of resources to negotiate new language that would also be difficult to enforce. ALPA's first job is to get contract compliance and enforcement, not really to protect the pilots from themselves. ALPA needs to put flight ops on notice that contract enforcement is key. ALPA can actually achieve both enforcement and a new LOA with existing leverage. Just tie the LOA to current "ambiguities" with in our current contract. We get both a new LOA and CBA interpretations at the same time. Call it a joint LOA....The leverage is there if any reps are watching this forum. |
Originally Posted by awax
(Post 1857690)
Blaming the MEC for not letting the pilots get more add pay while not addressing the issues that led to the rejection is decidedly one sided to me. I'll just accept that the MEC no longer found it "reasonably practicable" to work under MOU 22.
The company needs ALPA right now more than ALPA needs the company. Look for the company to either to continue to blame it on ALPA, or they will do the Milli-Vanilli defense and just "blame it on the rain." |
Originally Posted by awax
(Post 1857628)
I had to giggle at the "special message" meant to offer more "color and context" to operation issues. Thankfully the MEC saw through the "bag of air" being offered in the LOA. The promise of add pay is an empty promise when the payroll system is so crippled that you'll never see it anyway.
When negotiations fail with the bargaining agent, I guess the only other option is to go directly to the membership. Textbook move! By the way ... did the MEC recall the Negotiating Committee for bringing them an LOA that they unanimously rejected? |
Originally Posted by Coach67
(Post 1858748)
There are two sides to every story. I want to hear both!
By the way ... did the MEC recall the Negotiating Committee for bringing them an LOA that they unanimously rejected? |
Originally Posted by awax
(Post 1858916)
You got a letter from the chairman, a letter from the VP of flt ops, and should have your LEC rep's phone number. What else do you need?
As to the other statement I made ... I'm just wondering if the negotiating committee is out of touch with the mec when they bring them a Tentative Agreement that gets rejected unanimously. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:19 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands