hummingbear

Again, this really isn’t my fight, but I disagree with your conclusion. It will be “enough already” when we’ve voted on the TA. Until then, everyone is welcome to share where they feel it succeeds &/or falls short.

Your ability to raise alarms is not dependent on whether I feel your concerns are valid & vice-versa. This is a democratic system. If an issue raised has merit in the eyes of the majority, there may be action. If the claim is “next they’re coming for your balls”, it will probably be seen as alarmist; fizzle & die. In which case, why worry about it?

Sunvox

Given the fact that we are not in negotiations but rather voting on an actual TA, I would offer a different question as being more relevant: Is this single issue worth voting "NO" on the TA?

jerryleber

Agreed. As of 0900 ET on 9/25/23 82.8% of eligible pilots have voted. Would you like to bet on the outcome?

GolferNJ

The issue is you and an entire council are raising concerns based on a flawed legal understanding and when people try and explain it to you in lawman terms you are unwilling or unable to comprehend what is being explained to you.

jerryleber

Pretty safe bet that it is not for the overwhelming number of pilots. Some pilots are upset that the union went to such lengths to address this issue to the extent they have on behalf of a very small group of pilots who are almost impossible to please.

Race Bannon

Personally, I think the overwhelming number of pilots would have liked to see it spelled out specifically who the parties of "unilaterally" are. When I first read it, I thought (assumed) the same as you, it's the company and ALPA.

But I can also recognize that stated unequivocally has more teeth. And no, of course it's not a NO vote. It does however bring to light something that can be tightened up next time.

It would have zero cost to the company and could only result in stronger language. What is there to lose?

Those that can't admit this are just as baffling as council 171 attempting to use it to justify a 'NO' vote.

jerryleber

Please tell us what other parties are involved in our CBA. Not 'baffling' at all.

Race Bannon

You failed to answer my question but I will show a little more respect and answer your rebuttal.

The CBA obviously is between two parties, the company and ALPA. That being said, I don't doubt some lawyer could make an argument about what is meant by "unilaterally". No doubt it is inferred it's the company and ALPA. Again I'll ask, why not make it iron clad next contract?

"Unilaterally" or "with ALPA concurrence". One set of wording appears significantly tighter than the other. My follow up question is ,"Why are you hellbent on defending something that seems to have only upside potential with NO downside risk/cost"?

Even a blind squirrel can find an acorn every once in a while(171). This is the only acorn I can find from 171. I can admit it without supporting them, insinuating I'm a no vote, or this 1 minor detail warrants in a deal killer.

jerryleber

Because it already is 'iron clad'. Always check your premises.

I know we pilots are experts at everything, but in this case I'll take the word of the career ALPA attorneys, the NC and simple common sense instead of the ceaseless complaints of a small contingent of one-issue pilots and their very inexperienced reps who have obviously forgotten that they represent all the pilots and not just the loudest or those who helped them get elected.

ClappedOut145

Is like my grandpa used to say, an empty barrel makes the most noise. SW and her antics are downright embarrassing. She comes off looking like she belongs in a shack in Montana writing her manifesto and sending it to various newspapers. I almost want to see the government mandate another vaccine just to watch her have another meltdown (and I agree with nothing that the current administration does). It’s epic.