Hawaii50

True. If it passes overwhelmingly should those that voted not to send it to the group be rewarded or kicked to the curb?

brakechatter

The old machine tactics are getting....well...old. You guys are starting to sound like chit chat. C2015 was by any comparison to C2016, a lackluster effort. That would be fine, but it was sold as a huge win, and a last resort to a PEB, everything that was possible, and an entrance into Dante's inferno should it be voted down. That would be fine, except that C2015 wasn't the will of the pilot group. Therefore, supporting MEC reps, at least some of them, felt the fallout from the decade long mantra which they attempted to continue.

Now you are trying to draw a fallout comparison with an agreement that will likely pass memrat overwhelmingly due to the significant improvement---which in itself is due to the hardline stance taken by 12 individuals back in the july/august timeframe---over that rejected and unwanted TA.

Saying no: worked. Frankly, there are still some parts of this agreement which are completely unacceptable, and some reps feel as if they are doing the very thing for which they were elected: saving the pilot group from themselves. I completely respect that. Some reps have come to the conclusion that we are NOW at the point that the risk of loss is too great in not sending this agreement to the pilots. I respect that too. Some reps likely still have the mindset that C2015 was as good as we could have done, and see how we got parked--told you!!!! Ha ha.

When you find yourself supporting the same candidate for chairman as the CVG CA rep, you may want to take a look at whether or not you are in BK. If you are, take the conservative route. If you aren't, you may wish to consider a more aggressive line.

Pretty simple in my book. One set of reps and thoughts were proven wrong since the last election, were willing to take more hits on scope and PS, and one set got us more without this hits.

Hawaii50

Yes, the resolve that rejected TA15 resulted in TA16 without a doubt. My thought was that if a representative is that out of step with his constituents that he votes not to send a TA to the group which ultimately passes 82/18 he needs to evaluate whether he's really still representing his group. That's all.

brakechatter

You could check with the CVG captain rep and the training council mech chair for starters I guess. Shoot, one of them thinks he even needs to be in the administration now.

notEnuf

15/19 = ???

That's the closest an MEC has ever gotten to a true representation of the members. Who wasn't represented?

Bradshaw24

I suspect neither will happen. Neither reward or reprisal. Malone is reelected, as he should be, and either Hay or Mason are elected Vice Chairman, possibly Brielmann as Secretary, and Geddie is reelected. Schnitzler is gone in March, Lewis is tainted goods after leaking confidential material and being so far out of touch with the pilots, but he'll limp along for another year. Wheeler hangs on as Bartels foot soldier.

ClimbClimbNow

>> if a representative is that out of step with his constituents that he votes not to send a TA to the group which ultimately passes 82/18 he needs to evaluate whether he's really still representing his group.<<



Question:
My answer is "A".


If there is concern over the lack of unanimity (assuming it was obtainable), I would look toward the actions of the Neg Cmte (for coloring a little outside of the lines), or the Master Chairman for failing to do the diplomatic worked required to achieve same.

CCN

notEnuf

Governance would cease to function if unanimous decision was the threshold. We can't even get a simple majority for president. This was a very representative outcome.

ClimbClimbNow

>>Governance would cease to function if unanimous decision was the threshold. We can't even get a simple majority for president. This was a very representative outcome.<<

Agree that it was representative. There have been unanimous MEC votes, including on TAs. I didn't mean the pilot ratification vote. Guess I should have been more specific.

If the goal is to get ALL the MEC members "on board", it takes more than what we saw this time around. I believe that's possible. We can improve. That was my point.

Hawaii50

OK I'll let you politicians take it from here but in my overly simplistic mind I wouldn't have MEC leadership that either voted for TA15 or against TA16. Neither seem to represent the will of the group.