I did not post any misinformation. I may have used the incorrect terminology (decertify) but the end result after IBT files for a Single Transporter System determination, is the same, AMFA will represent both sides. You accuse me of fear tactics but it seems you will take every opportunity to ignore anything that doesn't fit your agenda. Your post about how it is impossible for the IBT to submit a request for a Single Transporter System determination with the NMB after they file for arbitration is just plain wrong. It may be that we have had different interpretations on this subject from different attorneys, but the ones I have worked with have repeated more than once that it is possible and legal and I trust Them over any "Hangar Lawyer". The IBT attorney has stated at least 3 times in open negotiations and off the record that is their intentions. It is not fear mongering it is fact. Whether IBT follows through is yet to be seen, but you need to stop spinning every thing that doesnt fit your agenda as fear mongering. It also remains to be seen if the AT guys that are coming on the 23rd have any authority to make any decsions or if they are only attending the meeting in proxy to deliver the IBT's message. We have already found out what happens when their committee comes in without any authority from the IBT Airline Division Reps, they make proposals they can't deliver ("we will take a 25% reduction") and then ask for a mulligan.
This current referendum is a Company proposal. In SAT AMFA only agreed in concept to the SLI proposal and stipulated that only after going through the document line for line with the Company, making sure we understood and agreed on all the language intent, we would consider it a TA. Going line for line was necessary because all three parties were never in the same room and the language being proposed was theoretically owned by the Company which meant they also owned its intent, AMFA had to take this step. We also required the Company to give us an addendum document that defined all protected slots in MCO and BWI, which the Company didn't produce for at least a month. We finally met with the Company and discovered there were several areas in the document we had concerns and even disagreed. It was then decided that AMFA would not call it a TA but it could go out to the Membership at the company's request as a company proposal. The same concerns we had with the company proposal are the same reasons the SLI will be voted down.
