I received a copy of this email today. The email speaks for itself and answers the question from the company perspective for those that doubted the IBT was committed to securing a standalone United agreement prior to amalgamating. In my opinion the original author was hoping for a different answer to add fuel to his arguments. The only thing removed were the email addresses but it's interesting to note that the author of the original email included his web address (perhaps to show the company there is no solidarity which begs the question, is he an agent for the company working against the mechanics or perhaps not very bright? I leave that for you to decide). Email follows;
From: Keenan, Jim [SFOVO]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 9:04 AM
To: 'GT Davis'
Subject: RE: Amalgamation Negotiations
GT,
Thanks for your note. I'm happy to help clear this up. Not only is it NOT true that I said the IBT expressed the desire to pursue amalgamated negotiations, but that is the exact OPPOSITE of what I said. The Company pushed hard from the beginning to negotiate an amalgamated contract, but the IBT held firm that we needed to first negotiate a UA-only agreement. The Company agreed but stated that if we were unsuccessful we would push to file with the NMB for mediation on an amalgamated agreement.
Jim
From: GT Davis
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 7:11 PM
To: Keenan, Jim [SFOVO]
Subject: Amalgamation Negotiations
Mr. Keenan. I am a UAL Mechanic out of Denver and I have heard you made a statement in Chicago to the affect the IBT expressed they wished to negotiate an amalgamated contract and not a single UAL contract. In order to stop false rumors I would appreciate it if you could confirm or deny this. Thank you.
The-UALMechanics.com
GT Davis
