Originally Posted by Lewbronski

This guy, whoever who or she is, is clearly either a FordHarrison ghoul or is one of your own working directly for management or at management's behest.

Originally Posted by MJP27

Ok next question. You're willing to risk sending this back for a few tweaks, that may cost us more dollars in the long run if it doesn't happen how you think it will? Seems counter intuitive and a big risk for small changes.

What are those "tweaks" that will make you support an AIP? I'm genuinely curious

Originally Posted by dmeg13021

Isn’t the mediator paid to get a deal done, to potentially include lying to both parties about their relative bargaining position?

Originally Posted by Scoop

This vote will be closer than you think. 25% will vote No to anything. 25% will vote yes to anything. There seems to be some weird dynamic of “Steet Creed” associated with a No vote. So much so that I wouldn’t be surprised if some folks vote No thinking it will pass anyhow - this is not wise because this vote will be closer than you think.

As far as votes go the “Yes” voters on TA-2 have been denigrated for years for supporting that “POS” deal. TA-2 sucked so bad many now want to work under it longer is search of a better deal? You would think with all the QOL gains it would be a tsunami of yes votes. Maybe TA-2 ain’t so bad after all.

To those who say a few tweaks and we are back in business - I say maybe, but what tweaks? Do we open up new polling or do we send the same negotiators out again with the same data that they had? Do we replace the NC? Will the NC members resign with a rejection? Do we spool up the recall machine and recall the “ Yes” reps?

I would be all for an improved deal - it worked on TA-1 and could work again, but the risk reward seems out of whack. We would delay definite huge gains for possible “tweaks.” A large majority of the No voters are upset about the lack of retirement - I totally get it, but the time to deal with that was LOA 51, the Joint Contract, C2012, and to some extant C2015. There is not much we can do now for guys who leave in the next year or two except for a minimum balance - does anyone see that happening with our demographics?

Scoop

Originally Posted by tunes

I’m not going to speak in specifics to negotiate in public, but to ensure the agreement met polling direction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Wmuav8r

Here is an idea…since Delta, United and American will probably be stuck with 8-10 year contracts why don’t ALPA and APA get together and put some political pressure on changing the stupid RLA. That thing has been punching me in the face my whole career!

Originally Posted by fishforfun

Is it possible some/many of these QoL gains in section 23 could be nullified by slippery language?

Originally Posted by tunes

I will not speak for other councils or say how the breakdown was, but we did not support turning it into an AIP last week. Can that change based on feedback we get between now and a TA? sure. We won't make that decision until the final language is done and it will be based on the language and the feedback we are receiving.

Originally Posted by dragon

Is there any sort of timeline for when the language will be done and the MEC receives it for the 7 day review? I ask, not only for myself, but as we see more and more threads about the topic this could spiral out of control without some red meat for the wolves to chew on.