Again Res, why so angry? I thought a toothless USAPA made you happy.
I'm reading the day one transcript a little at time, as much as I can take. I thought Holmes' testimony was striking, how about you? It reminded me of another issue that was debated on here and the west had a field day with-the LOA 93 snap back agreement. Remember that?
USAPA tried to say that the contract we voted for, LOA 93, had a provision to snap back to our former wages. The company said it didn't, but the language was pretty confusing. I thought we we lose and here's why. I actually read LOA 93 before voting on it, I didn't take anyone's word for what it meant, and the language in question caught my eye. I went to my rep for clarification and he said in no uncertain terms that the pay would not snap back and I shouldn't vote for LOA 93 thinking it would. Well for many different reasons I voted for LOA 93(regret it now, it was overreaching and unnecessary in many areas, but I had little faith in our negotiating committee and ALPA to do any better), warts and all. I knew what I was voting for and I didn't expect to get anything better until the time the company was in a position to, and needed to, renegotiate it.
I see the same situation for the west here. There is no way anyone with a brain can honestly say there was any doubt about the Nic and the MOU. Holmes testified that he didn't like the language and wanted it changed. He didn't succeed, but he and AOL advised their pilots to vote for it anyway. You bought the car, just like we bought LOA 93. What you are doing now is just like what USAPA tried to do with the snap back.
What did "no west pilot should vote FOR the MOU thinking that it will implement the Nicolau award" mean to you?
I'm reading the day one transcript a little at time, as much as I can take. I thought Holmes' testimony was striking, how about you? It reminded me of another issue that was debated on here and the west had a field day with-the LOA 93 snap back agreement. Remember that?
USAPA tried to say that the contract we voted for, LOA 93, had a provision to snap back to our former wages. The company said it didn't, but the language was pretty confusing. I thought we we lose and here's why. I actually read LOA 93 before voting on it, I didn't take anyone's word for what it meant, and the language in question caught my eye. I went to my rep for clarification and he said in no uncertain terms that the pay would not snap back and I shouldn't vote for LOA 93 thinking it would. Well for many different reasons I voted for LOA 93(regret it now, it was overreaching and unnecessary in many areas, but I had little faith in our negotiating committee and ALPA to do any better), warts and all. I knew what I was voting for and I didn't expect to get anything better until the time the company was in a position to, and needed to, renegotiate it.
I see the same situation for the west here. There is no way anyone with a brain can honestly say there was any doubt about the Nic and the MOU. Holmes testified that he didn't like the language and wanted it changed. He didn't succeed, but he and AOL advised their pilots to vote for it anyway. You bought the car, just like we bought LOA 93. What you are doing now is just like what USAPA tried to do with the snap back.
What did "no west pilot should vote FOR the MOU thinking that it will implement the Nicolau award" mean to you?