BrownGirls YUM

I wonder who/why.

"Based on discussions during the meeting, the MEC passed a resolution, by a vote of 7 to 4, adopting the company’s proposed modification."

nightfreight

It's hard to understand why the vote was 7-4, when it is, without a doubt an improvement of the original LOA. Don't get me wrong, I still think it is a terrible deal.

These guys baffle me, I must admit. Why would they vote 11-1 on the original, then change to 7-4 on a better deal?

Could anyone provide a rational explanation for this???

Daniel Larusso

I've said it before, I'll say it again MEC's are rarely ever totally unanimous on anything. We just get to the finished product which is often the result of political horse trading. While I have absolutely NO inside info, however it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to find that those same four were against the way Age 60/65 was handled and probably the original LOA deal. It also show the people who want to recall DW what they are up against. You have to find out who 'the 4' are, successfully recall at least two of the remaining seven, replace them with candidates who agree with 'the 4', and finally get those same people to agree on a new MC/VC package, all before one of those 4(EI) is removed from his position in a year and new reps pop up in CDG and HKG. Easy right?

Albief15

4 folks thought we might have enough leverage to ask for more. 7 thought going back to the well would be a bad idea.

I was with the "4", but then again--I wasn't there and I am not aware of all the arguments pro/con. I'll let those guys speak for themselves.

Jetjok

That's a pretty big assumption you make, that "the 4" were against the Age 60/65 thing AND that they are the same 4 who want to recall DW. You did say you've no inside information, but you certainly do have an active imagination.

fdxflyer

conjecture or do you know something? and where would they think we got leverage they didn't think we had when they voted the first time?

FDXLAG

Maybe because the company caved?

Daniel Larusso

Or perhaps I have seen it happen before so no need to imagine. I was quite clear that I had no inside info. There are a lot of people around here who seem to want some sort of leadership change within ALPA, however imo the average line person's knowledge of how the ALPA sausage factory works is generally lacking. For example, how many people around here STILL think that we the pilots can directly recall the MC? I heard a few say it the other day with quite a bit of conviction. So to me, a little bit of experience/education can't hurt and since I am Joe Nobody it is easily accepted or ignored. A lot of this stuff is politics and at times personalities, though no one dares to say that publicly for good reason as it makes us look weak to the company. Often times in MEC politics, the people with the minority opinion just give in when it's obvious that they don't have enough votes which is ONE reason why stuff that comes out from MEC's across the land not just here at FX tends to be unanimous. That doesn't mean the internal debate among the MEC members was unanimous and quite often it isn't which is good thing imo. For whatever reason, 4 members were willing to go against DW on this one. For those who want a recall, you can bet that those 4 reps are likely the ones you wish to keep. It's also a good bet that they were some of the more vocal reps in the Age 60/65 deal that the MEC has admitted was contentious internally. Bottom line, they are not going to just come out and tell us the internal politics of the MEC. So for those that want change, you must learn things off the record and take whatever nuggets of info you can on who is with you or against you. This vote may be one of those nuggets imo, look at the timing and the likely fact that they knew what voting no at this time would do to the credibility of DW and BC.

Flaps50MaxBrake

FDXLAG,
Do you mean cave on STV? I'll have to respectfully disagree. With the ease that the company got this LOA I feel it was a well planned maneuver. Take a $1 to give back a quarter. I'm willing to bet that the reduction of STV to a month gave the company the needed 50%+1.
I'm a NO vote and it got me to reread the whole LOA.

Jetjok

Daniel,

You continue to state your points, based on nothing more than your perception of a current situation, that you admittedly have no knowledge of. That, plus "you've seen it before, so there's no need to imagine", plus $5.75 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks, maybe.

Before you go off on me, understand that I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I'm unwilling to take that leap of faith that you apparently are more than happy to take, and are more than willing to share with the rest of us. For all anyone knows, you could be spot on. We just don't know.

As for a recall of MEC members as well as DW, that's a step that I'd be unwilling to take, regardless of which side of the Age 60 thingy and this LOA, I happen to fall on, for I believe that the MEC as well as the Negotiating Committee have been doing the best job that they could, given the ambivalence of the crew force. Can both the MEC and the NC do better? Sure they can. Have they been lax in the timeliness of their communications to us? Certainly! Have they not represented us all equally? Probably, but I must say, frankly, ALPA and I suspect all of the other airline unions, are captain's (here you can substitute the word "captain's" with the words "senior crew members") unions. Like it or not, it's just a fact of life. The captains have: been there the longest; they have paid the most dues to the union; they are the most important part of any flight crew, being as they are responsible for the jet; long term captains have the credibility of their years of flying the line; etc, etc. So it's my belief that they (MEC/NC) have done the best they could, and I'll not be voting for a recall any time soon.

As for this LOA, in my opinion, it's still not worth voting "yes" for, and probably will never be worth voting for, until a number of issues are resolved, and the company starts to understand that we are a unique, highly skilled, and highly motivated group, and should receive benefits and compensation that reflect these traits.