Possible SWA T.A. pay numbers... Embrace the suck.

[PCL_128]

That's great logic, if it actually happens. Unfortunately, it rarely does. Instead, you usually get something like 60/40 against, and then the company takes a wag at how much more cash they need to throw on the table to get the other 10% +1 vote. That's why BODs/MECs are supposed to be the check valve.

 

[Lear70]

I think - respectfully - that you're inserting foul play where there is none. They freely admit that they didn't like the deal but that the moderator wouldn't support them in any further negotiations. If the 23 member board voted the AIP down then the company spins it as an activist board out of touch with the pilots. If 8000 pilots vote it down, it's a mandate.

My reps say they'll be at the road show sharing their opinions. This is emotional enough. I look forward to reading what you write, but let's not assume the worst in the people who are volunteering to do the work of the Union. They have skin in the game too.

I'm not inserting foul play where there is none. Did you read Jon Weak's blast email to the LAS pilots today? He clearly laid out what I just said here... Many BoD members thought they were going to have an opportunity to send it with a NO recommendation, then the vote never happened.

Weaks was the one who presented the resolution, by the way.

The rest I agree with you. 8,000 pilots voting NO would be a great mandate. Hell, 85% of them would be awesome, but with the NC in heavy "spin" mode, highly moderating the T.A. sections of the Q&A area, deleting replies, deleting threads, leaving just the NC's response then locking a thread,,,

There's a big sales job being pitched here, and I'm concerned that the agenda of those in control of the T.A. section of the website is not going to allow dissenting viewpoints to be even heard by the majority.

It's going to be up to the Reps who are against it and the pilots sharing this info with other pilots who aren't as engaged or we're hosed.

 

[Lear70]

Having spent far more time than I'd like dealing with the NMB, I find it almost completely unbelievable that they're losing patience already. I'm sure the mediator may be saying such things to help speed along the process, but unless the execs have been called to K Street to be yelled at a few times, you're nowhere close to the Board's limit. I think what you've got are some negotiators and execs who just don't have the experience dealing with the Board to know how to work the process.

That would be about right.

Straight from the horse's mouth, the rumor that the mediator was frustrated with us isn't true. She wasn't, she just said "You have converged on a point in RRC and it's largely industry leading, I'm not going to push the company for more, you're going to have to figure out what you want to do from here."

I'm not going to comment on the questionable "industry leading" on the Scope changes, I don't have Delta's or American's Scope sections to compare to see what the limits are on their touching international same-station code share.

 

[General Lee]

Go back to dispatching those RJs, General.

Ahahahahaha! You did say the DL TA would pass. You are a complete idiot. And go vacuum over by Moak's desk, you missed a spot.....



Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[Nindiri]

I was a pretty solid NO vote when I first looked over the TA, but after reading a conversation about the retro/bonus/whatever, I'm reconsidering. Not that this TA is getting any better, but if the next TA is going to take away my bonus because I happen to be FAT, then I'm probably going to vote yes to lock it in now.

 

[Lear70]

That's great logic, if it actually happens. Unfortunately, it rarely does. Instead, you usually get something like 60/40 against, and then the company takes a wag at how much more cash they need to throw on the table to get the other 10% +1 vote. That's why BODs/MECs are supposed to be the check valve.

Exactly. I've been writing eMails to the Bod every other day all week leading up to the vote explaining that.

Unfortunately, many of them don't get it, and now, if we can kill it at all, we'll tip our hand on just how much/little they need to get the 50%+1 solution, and it won't be Scope.

I think we're screwed unless we really can get close to the Flight Attendant's resolve. At least THEY get it that their current contract is better than a little cash and a bunch of concessions. It'll be a sad story if the Flight Attendants are better-motivated for a fair deal than we are.

 

[Lear70]

I was a pretty solid NO vote when I first looked over the TA, but after reading a conversation about the retro/bonus/whatever, I'm reconsidering. Not that this TA is getting any better, but if the next TA is going to take away my bonus because I happen to be FAT, then I'm probably going to vote yes to lock it in now.

No one's going to do that. That's just a few OSW pissed off about the integration.

The BoD was vehement with PJ that they would not allow that and the Mediator would never go for it, either. Way too divisive.

 

[FurloughedAgain]

That would be about right.



Straight from the horse's mouth, the rumor that the mediator was frustrated with us isn't true. She wasn't, she just said "You have converged on a point in RRC and it's largely industry leading, I'm not going to push the company for more, you're going to have to figure out what you want to do from here."



I'm not going to comment on the questionable "industry leading" on the Scope changes, I don't have Delta's or American's Scope sections to compare to see what the limits are on their touching international same-station code share.

So would you rather the BOD have voted it down? If they did the angry mob would be lighting torches because they didn't get a chance to see/vote on it. And the company PR machine would be full steam about the activist board that wouldn't let the pilots see the "industry leading deal". The mediator would be peeved for the same reason.

I guess my point is that there isn't really anybody to be angry at here. The NC did the best they could, the BOD made the call to send it out because they were gonna get yelled at by the masses either way.

Now we vote and hopefully it's a mandate to improve retirement and tighten up the scope language again. I love your posts and you know I'm a big fan both here and on the union site, just trying to strip some of the emotion away so that people can see the solid info you offer for what it is.

 

[Nindiri]

I hope you're right. I don't like the divisive nature of that conversation; either I am SWA or I'm not, but no changing as it suits other people's agenda.

 

[PCL_128]

So would you rather the BOD have voted it down? If they did the angry mob would be lighting torches because they didn't get a chance to see/vote on it.

Sounds familiar.