Originally Posted by
flying_wendell
-Q&A session was very contentious, with 90% of the pilot angst focusing on the proposed pay rates.
I think the above quote is the most significant part of the CVG summary. I'm still on the fence as the whether I'm voting yes/no, but if I choose to vote no it will be the 70 additional 76 seaters that does it. The problem with a scope NO vote is I don't think most of the NO voters will have scope as their primary concern apart from those who read APC.
And if the TA gets voted down with pay as the primary concern, then I'm sure the company would be happy to give us another 10-15% more for 82 seats. I guess I fear with pay as the primary concern a reworked TA with additional pay will have WORSE scope what is being offered now.
By the way, I'm an APC idiot. How do I quote a message?
Your numbers and valuation are way off. The company wants to refleet the airline to carry about the same number of passengers but do it more efficiently with a better product. The difference in total profit between the fleet we have today and what they would like to have was significant but nothing like what is talked about here. The company quid if we allowed 82 seats was 2 percent in pay. I find it really interesting that because the company adds 717's to the mainline it makes this a cost neutral contract? Thats a big stretch, does that mean if they add 777 in the next contract it will be cost neutral? I spent several hours talking to one of the three main negotiators about all this. The information is easy to obtain if you look for it. Yes the company makes more money with a different fleet. No we did not get credit towards cost for the company adding mainline aircraft and jobs. Yes we did get credit for the DCI changes but it was based on the actual extra revenue that might be produced and then only a portion of that revenue. If we wanted it all then there is no incentive for the company to make any changes. We are talking single digit points in the overall cost of the contract.