Schwanker

We voted our reps in to make historic gains. Not give us some weak TA and tell the membership, "well if you don't like it, vote no." I'm not ok with that.

Check Essential

The MEC administration does the same thing to the reps.
That's what happened in 2012.

They bring back a lousy TA and then say "you can always vote no, but here's why that would be the end of the world".

Schwanker

Exactly. They need to know loud and clear that crap tactic is unacceptable.

sailingfun

No, that's why it makes sense to monetize the profit sharing if it's above and beyond the negotiated payrates. In my case it's probably better to stick with profit sharing with the few years I have left. If however i had 20 years to go I would want the money in the payrates.
"The industry is fundamentally changed. Double digit rate of returns are hear to stay!" That was the Mantra being touted by management and unions alike in 2000. By June of 2001 the airlines were facing some of the biggest losses ever. It turned in the blink of a eye. For the young guys we need to be very careful how much at risk based compensation we leave in our contracts. It would be beyond stupid to negotiate based on good times forever.

Karnak

Some of our reps voted No to the C2012 TA. Then they advised us to vote No, and told us why.

Did you think voting No would be the end of the world? I didn't.

Exaggerating the tone of the advice we got during the ratification of C2012 sounds like sour grapes.

Check Essential

And I'm saying it will never be "above and beyond". It will be something less.

Its very transparent what is happening here.

DALPA is going to try and get us to fund part of our own pay raises.
We're not going to fall for it this time.

sailingfun

I have asked this question several times here and never been given a answer. Why on earth would our reps and negotiating committee have some sort of plan to limit contractual gains? Why would they want to pay themselves less and work more?

OldFlyGuy

1 They like working for less.
2 They like working more.
3 They don't ever want to retire.
4 They don't ever plan to be sick.
5 They don't believe in vacation.
6 None of them ever return to the line.
7 They are all going to get SD's job.
8 They are all secretly bought off.
9 Lee and Tim told them to.
10 RA used his hypnotic powers on them.

I could be wrong about number 10 as the committees usually wear aluminum foil on their heads during negotiations. OFG

TenYearsGone

My opinion is that some sort of modified "Stockholm Syndrome" or "Kool-Aid" scenario occurs. The line between management and union fades creating a cohesive relationship thus mildly diluting contractual gains while fortifying management goals. (after all dont most union guys end up in management positions?)

TEN

Check Essential

You don't remember the whole "fleeting opportunity" argument? O'Malley's letter?
That was the reason the administration gave for circumventing the negotiating process and ignoring the survey results and the "direction" from the reps. That's the reason they gave for signing a quick TA and then dropping it in the MEC's lap.
We were told we had to act fast or we would lose our one and only chance to get the 717s and reduce the number of RJs.
I don't think anyone believes now that the 717s weren't coming anyway and that RA wasn't going to park a bunch of the 50 seaters no matter what happened.

C'mon man. We got played. You can admit it. Anderson is smarter. He got us to give concessions for things he was going to do anyway.

They made the deal and then told the reps they had to pass it or the negotiators would lose all credibility with management....
The next offer would be less... The time value of money.... If we don't act now then Anderson and the NMB will put us on ice for years.... etc. etc.