IBT No Show Forum

[swamt]

Guys, at this meeting it was asked if they went to the meeting with 4 years with ridding of the LOA and the majority did in fact say no lower than the 4 years. Yes there was many others that wanted more, but it was unnaminous to go in with the 4 years. At this time, most everyone discussed after this meeting that they would not go any lower. Once this was done and the word got out, after the cmte discussed with the members, and yes they did come up with the min of 4 years. Rather it was desided that day or not, no I am not 100% sure. However the question rather to go in with the 4 years at the table was brought up, if this was used as an example most all that I spoke with was under the impression that it was in fact the lowest. Here's a good question for the present, what is the bottom number now? I have been told numerous times by some on the nego cmte that 4 is, am I wrong, or have I been told wrong this whole time? I don't think so... Not trying to spin anything guys, never have.

 

[grmach1]

Guys, at this meeting it was asked if they went to the meeting with 4 years with ridding of the LOA and the majority did in fact say no lower than the 4 years. Yes there was many others that wanted more, but it was unnaminous to go in with the 4 years. At this time, most everyone discussed after this meeting that they would not go any lower. Once this was done and the word got out, after the cmte discussed with the members, and yes they did come up with the min of 4 years. Rather it was desided that day or not, no I am not 100% sure. However the question rather to go in with the 4 years at the table was brought up, if this was used as an example most all that I spoke with was under the impression that it was in fact the lowest. Here's a good question for the present, what is the bottom number now? I have been told numerous times by some on the nego cmte that 4 is, am I wrong, or have I been told wrong this whole time? I don't think so... Not trying to spin anything guys, never have.

Most everyone? You mean in Dallas? The cmte discussed with members? You mean in Dallas? I assure you that none of the other stations had the same input to my knowledge. Just checking.

 

[WNMECH]

Guys, at this meeting it was asked if they went to the meeting with 4 years with ridding of the LOA and the majority did in fact say no lower than the 4 years. Yes there was many others that wanted more, but it was unnaminous to go in with the 4 years. At this time, most everyone discussed after this meeting that they would not go any lower. Once this was done and the word got out, after the cmte discussed with the members, and yes they did come up with the min of 4 years. Rather it was desided that day or not, no I am not 100% sure. However the question rather to go in with the 4 years at the table was brought up, if this was used as an example most all that I spoke with was under the impression that it was in fact the lowest. Here's a good question for the present, what is the bottom number now? I have been told numerous times by some on the nego cmte that 4 is, am I wrong, or have I been told wrong this whole time? I don't think so... Not trying to spin anything guys, never have.

In the meeting when the discussion between people was about numbers of years back and forth, the committee member leading the meeting stopped the discussion.
He said the number was already decided and he was not going to allow a us to vote on a number because that was not the reason for that meeting.
He was asked what the number was, and he said he would not tell us because it was already decided and if he told us it would be on the internet before the next days negotiation meeting.
He said we don't want to negotiate on internet chat forums.
He then said he only wanted to know if we supported the position to change from a percentage boost to a set number of years with no fences and if we all would give up our LOA.
He made sure we understood what giving up that LOA entailed and asked for a raise of hands if we agreed to these things only.
This was nowhere near any support of 4 years.
This was a unanimous vote.
He refused to tell us the committee's number.
This was the only actual vote taken.

To be fair to you, yes we discussed numbers between ourselves and it appeared the numbers were between 4-8 years with most well above 4.
But I must stress, not everyone spoke their minds and a vote on numbers was not taken.
So to say a vote for 4 years was unanimous is not correct.
I was there.
I voted.
Please do not mischaracterize my vote.
I know what we voted on.

The committee is, and has always been, in control of this and that is their job alone.
Let them handle it.

 

[WNMECH]

Most everyone? You mean in Dallas? The cmte discussed with members? You mean in Dallas? I assure you that none of the other stations had the same input to my knowledge. Just checking.

Dude, Dallas did not decide this.
I posted the exact facts of the meeting.

I gave SWAMT a chance to claify his statement but he wants to keep digging.

The committee is and has always been deciding everything.

 

[grmach1]

Dude, Dallas did not decide this.
I posted the exact facts of the meeting.

I gave SWAMT a chance to claify his statement but he wants to keep digging.

The committee is and has always been deciding everything.

I guess I would know that if I was in Dallas.

 

[WNMECH]

I guess I would know that if I was in Dallas.

If you don't have access to a committee member or your ALR, PM me and I will try to answer your questions.

 

[WNMECH]

Most everyone? You mean in Dallas? The cmte discussed with members? You mean in Dallas? I assure you that none of the other stations had the same input to my knowledge. Just checking.

After reading this post again I wanted to add something.
That meeting was with just the local 11 ALR and the Dallas negoatiating committee member.
Not the whole committee.
It was the day before we met with AT for the first time after our rejection of the company offer.
The main reason they wanted to speak to us was to tell us what was about to happen and our committee member wanted to know if we backed their decision to change to a set number of years instead of a percent boost.
Also he wanted to know for himself if we all backed the decison to give up the LOA.
He said if they came back with a deal that we gave up the LOA protection letter, and then later we say we are against that, then he would be so frustrated that he may kill himself.
By a show of hands do we back him or not.
We backed the committee to make these decisions by 100%.
It was a CYA or vote of confidence meeting for the most part.
The committee is in charge of all decisions in this negotiation.

 

[swaboeingonly]

After reading this post again I wanted to add something.
That meeting was with just the local 11 ALR and the Dallas negoatiating committee member.
Not the whole committee.
It was the day before we met with AT for the first time after our rejection of the company offer.
The main reason they wanted to speak to us was to tell us what was about to happen and our committee member wanted to know if we backed their decision to change to a set number of years instead of a percent boost.
Also he wanted to know for himself if we all backed the decison to give up the LOA.
He said if they came back with a deal that we gave up the LOA protection letter, and then later we say we are against that, then he would be so frustrated that he may kill himself.
By a show of hands do we back him or not.
We backed the committee to make these decisions by 100%.
It was a CYA or vote of confidence meeting for the most part.
The committee is in charge of all decisions in this negotiation.

Why isn't the committee soliciting members system wide? It DOES appear DAL is running the show and making the decisions. I, for one, want years not a percent but what I want more is a seniority cut on AT side not a boost. Just my opinion.

 

[WNMECH]

Why isn't the committee soliciting members system wide? It DOES appear DAL is running the show and making the decisions. I, for one, want years not a percent but what I want more is a seniority cut on AT side not a boost. Just my opinion.

I don't know what local represents you but that question is for your rep.

I explained we had one info meeting.
So how are we in Dallas running the show?
Any mechanic can pick up a phone or email their rep.
If the only imput you give to the process is on the internet, then that is on you.
The committee is making all the decisions with advice from lawyers and members that make their voices heard.
They couldn't care less about internet chat.

 

[SWA.TECH]

Most everyone? You mean in Dallas? The cmte discussed with members? You mean in Dallas? I assure you that none of the other stations had the same input to my knowledge. Just checking.

East coast was informed.

 

[SWA.TECH]

I guess I would know that if I was in Dallas.

Im about as far away from DAL as you can be and I knew? Talk to your reps.

 

[swamt]

Has anyone heard anything out of the nego meeting today?? Anyone? Anything? Kind of quiet out here.

 

[AvTech04]

Has anyone heard anything out of the nego meeting today?? Anyone? Anything? Kind of quiet out here.

Next meeting is scheduled for the 23rd of April... I'm not quite sure what for, but apparently they still haven't come to an agreement. I don't have any further details than that.

 

[SWA.TECH]

supposedly IBT came back at 3. AMFA is solid on 4, arbitration paperwork has been signed by AMFA from what I hear. Meeting again on 23 Apr 12.

 

[SWA.TECH]

Next meeting is scheduled for the 23rd of April... I'm not quite sure what for, but apparently they still haven't come to an agreement. I don't have any further details than that.

What for? well probably to give the IBT a chance to actually let its membership decide if they want to vote on the 4 year deal , or just go ahead and sign the arbitration paperwork, and collect dues from the AT guys for a couple more years whilst we arbitrate! And then we can come up with an A/B scale........