Truthfully; the MOU does not read EXACTLY on much of anything at all, except for the clearly-worded terms for surrendering the CoC. Perhaps you're question's best left to any who'll field it here, and you may well expect as many different types of answers as the number of posters doing so.
Dec 2012 / Jan 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
- Status
Truthfully; the MOU does not read EXACTLY on much of anything at all, except for the clearly-worded terms for surrendering the CoC. Perhaps you're question's best left to any who'll field it here, and you may well expect as many different types of answers as the number of posters doing so.
But the previous arguments don't give you any alarm at all?
You have a fine day as well. Ignorance, for you, is obviously blissful.
And this, for me, is blissful.
You sound as sure as Fergie does. Do you run your opinions by him first?
Make up your mind. AWA 320 and Move didn't behave this way.
No. Uncertainty of the future's always a given. What is certain at this time is that tempe very much wants this merger and apparently this MOU. To that second part: WHY?
It's incumbent on all of us to make our choices in life based on our most reasonable evaluation of circumstances and go from there. What does ring loud alarms for me is whenever people choose to base any decision(s) largely on fear and uncertainty. I've never found doing so to be either admirable or even functional.
I agree with you east, but I feel that you and some of the MOU no voters are assuming that everyone has made their yes decision out of fear and uncertainty. I haven't, I'm not scared in the least. It's just my logic and reason, flawed or not, has led me to the conclusion that it's the best we will get. And that comes after deciding to vote no on the first MOU.
I've offered for anyone to lay out a blueprint for what happens with a no vote. That's not to shred it, it's to look at it. No one has.
I believe they'd like this MOU, but they don't need it. As Pi and I have stated, we asked them for an MOU. I think we got it because the APA wanted us to have parity to prevent any whipsawing and the company would prefer any loose ends be tied up as best as possible. But need this? No.
"I believe they'd like this MOU, but they don't need it."
Fair enough. So we must then assume they're suddenly willing to part with sizeable amounts of future monies just because...umm...WHY? "because the APA wanted us to have parity to prevent any whipsawing"..? Yeah..THAT sure "makes sense" and certainly seems in line with tempe's well known generosity of spirit and wallet at work here for sure. I'll just leave a tiny bit of food for thought via an old poker axiom: "If after the first 30 minutes at any table you dont know who the sucker is, it's you."
A no vote's essentially a reasoned wager that more's to be had under the circumstances, that management will accede to further negotiotions, because it's in their best interests to do so, and perhaps the instrument might then, even emerge with some actual clarity and labor-positive force placed into it as well. There's no guarantee to be had, but there's an existent, reasonable guarantee from the contained (or largely omitted) language that all, or at least a great deal, won't go as currently imagined if this document's accepted as is.
Case in point just starting with seniority issues alone here; west posters are heralding this MOU as the harbinger of the nic. East posters argue the opposite. Hey!..Now THAT's some obvious "clarity" within the document all by it's self, and a great many of the provisions appear to me to be equally....umm..."uncertain" and up for future grabs, at the well-established "discretion" of the company, of course.
Honestly? I sadly expect this thing to pass as is, and I further expect to hear loudly howled, future protests amounting to: "HUH!?...WHAT!?... I didn't think they could do THAT!!!",etc.
PS: I didn't figure for you the type that did such. Sadly; no shortage of those who very much appear to be deciding based on uncertainty and concern exists.
Metroyet
Veteran
- Nov 1, 2008
- 2,571
- 5,664
If one was being honest with themselves, they'd have to come to the conclusion that USAPA, left to their own, could NEVER deliver the financial benefits of this MOU. APA delivered this and USAPA tagged along. Perhaps now would be a good time to reevaluate just how deep a hole USAPA has dug for its membership, and recognize this MOU for what it is...the only REALISTIC lifeline to an improved lifestyle. Without the merger or MOU it's loa93 for several more years. It's the only rational conclusion. You should be thankful but we saw how fast gratitude turns to greed and treachery with East scabs. Luckily the vast majority get it. 78% pass. 12% no 10% fail to vote.
A320 Driver
Veteran
- Aug 24, 2002
- 3,358
- 2,319
What if you are wrong? What is you backup plan if the company says "we'll talk to you in 24 months"? Who will you blame then? Who will blame YOU? A "reasoned wager" is a bet. You are betting an awful lot.
What's your point?
You truly would benefit from counseling for even just your anger issues alone, should you turn the corner far enough to ever become honest with yourself, that is. Your choice. All people can have bad days, Lord knows I've made a jackazz of myself at times here, but your posts universally reek of acid and anger. Once food and shelter's reasonably assured for any given day; life needn't generally be a miserable experience...Just sayin'....
- Status
