Local 514 vote yes rally

[Overspeed]

Have you seen the cost outs on both?

No I haven't but the Presidents have. I hope they had the sense to cost out all the items, even the ones they did not agree with. If we reject and go to court the TWU would have to present cost outs to show where the AMR stuff did not make sense and why ours makes more sense. So there is the problem, our financial experts have to demolish the AMR financial experts in court and get the judge to believe they don't need to abrogate our CBA. How confident do you feel in our ability to do that?

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob, you say ASM cap protects jobs, now its system protection. You are on the double talk train.

Both the term sheet and the LBO say system protection is gone. There is a savings attributed to that is there not? $12,500 not having to be paid due to bumping saves a lot of money when you outsourcing 4,300 jobs. Seriously Bob, we are in the BK that was a threat, a sham, and plain not right but guess what, we are in the sh#t now.

And if Luby were here he would slam you on that lie. How dare you invoke the name of a person that helped write contract language that kept you working all this time?A CBA that are systematically destroying with your lies and half truths. You are truly pathetic.

How do you figure its doubletalk to say that the ASM cap and system protection are both related to Job security?

System protection and the $12500 are two different items, you can keep one without the other.

Your ever increasing outlandish accusations simply reveal your desperation.

 

[Hopeful]

How do you figure its doubletalk to say that the ASM cap and system protection are both related to Job security?

System protection and the $12500 are two different items, you can keep one without the other.

Your ever increasing outlandish accusations simply reveal your desperation.

I agree, they could've eliminated the $12500 and kept the system protection. Make bumping solely the costs and responsibilities the burden of the employees.

 

[Bob Owens]

I agree, they could've eliminated the $12500 and kept the system protection. Make bumping solely the costs and responsibilities the burden of the employees.

The $12500 is in addition to Moving Costs

 

[iluvaa]

well the YES voters are getting more vocal in TUL im thinking it will pass here by a large margin

 

[Hopeful]

well the YES voters are getting more vocal in TUL im thinking it will pass here by a large margin

Read this article....Shows the sentiment of a few that would be affected by a rif.
I understand their concerns. It is a personal decison on how we all vote.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/union-approval-could-save-1k-144421528.html

 

[Flying low]

well the YES voters are getting more vocal in TUL im thinking it will pass here by a large margin

Where are you hearing this? I'm hearing more no's than yes's.

 

[Mr Red]

This company has money for everything,except the employees.!!!
VOTE NO !!!

 

[BigMac]

well the YES voters are getting more vocal in TUL im thinking it will pass here by a large margin

I'm hearing more "yes" voters are in TUL hangar 5c than not. 3D two inspectors admitted "yes" voters.

 

[Flying low]

I'm hearing more "yes" voters are in TUL hangar 5c than not. 3D two inspectors admitted "yes" voters.

5C, isn't that where a lot of the recent new hires (late last year) ended up?

 

[BigMac]

5C, isn't that where a lot of the recent new hires (late last year) ended up?

Yes

 

[iluvaa]

Yes

I can only speak to hangar 5 but I'm hearing lots of yes

 

[BigMac]

I can only speak to hangar 5 but I'm hearing lots of yes

Hangar 5A,D,E & F correct? I was on 5C on mids last night and got the impression they were voting "yes".

 

[2ndGENAMT]

Useful if you actually read and comprehend it. This is what happens when people who aren’t lawyers try to interpret judicial opinions. The opinion you link to is a District Court decision overruling the Bankruptcy Court. Part B, which you base your opinion on, describes the Bankruptcy court decision which was overruled. If you read the first part of the decision it specifically states that the reason the Bankruptcy Court decision was overruled was because it relied on proposals made after the beginning of the hearings on the motion to reject. That is the part that is quoted by our lawyer in her opinion where she states that the LBO cannot be considered by the Court because it was a proposal made after the beginning of the hearings.

The Court does not impose anything. It simply accepts or rejects based on the Company’s representation of what it intends to impose. The Company has stated in every proceeding that it intends to impose the “Ask” and if the contract is rejected that is what will be imposed. If you think this isn’t the correct account of the law find a lawyer who will sign his name to a contrary opinion.

I understand fully!! Especially what happened in the 1113 hearing, page 4 reads the hearing commenced on Oct 3 with continued sessions on 10,16 &17. The parties continued to NEGOTIATE AFTER THE FIRST HEARING SESSION AND FRONTIER PRODUCED A THIRD MODIFIED PROPOSAL TO THE UNION......This deal is concensual abrogation and I am voting NO!!!

STOP spreading FEAR OS!!

 

[2ndGENAMT]

Does anyone seriously believe the judge is going to slam his gavel and say your contracts are gone and AA can do whatever they want??

WE will see what happens with the pilots & attendants because they will fight on! The TWU will get the vote they need because of the fear they are spreading and the ignorance of the majority of its membership....