Originally Posted by
Seaslap8
If the company saves $100 (or a billion) somewhere on the balance sheet and then gives it to us...it is "cost neutral" to the company, get it?
Despite everything I have read, I refuse to believe you are so obtuse as to not understand the meaning of this; but feel free to keep posting this "cost neutral" nonsense if it helps you rationalize your "no" vote.
Seeslap,
Understand that this is just another point where both sides are talking past each other. (Except, I think one side is doing it on purpose.)
When the question is asked, "Is this a cost neutral contract?" and the responding answer is, "Not for the pilots, it isn't!" it comes across as if the respondent is being purposefully evasive.
Everyone understands that we as a pilot group will be making more money from the contract. But, do you understand that some might want to know what the company is putting out outside of the savings from "elsewhere?"
I'm sure many will ask why, and to be honest with you, for me, it's because of the crappy answer that was given in the first place. (Not for the pilots, it isn't.) I hate evasiveness.
For others, it probably has to do with fairness. If it is cost neutral for the company, why couldn't they kick in a little "non balance sheet cash" to smooth things out? (You know the kind of cash they probably used to pay the other employee groups raises?[*see below]) 5/15/5/5 sound's and feels a lot better than 4/8.5/3/3 and gives off a little less of the nickle and dime feel of a payraise that parses things down to 1/2%. (8.5%)
Finally, for others still, it might come for the knowledge that the savings that the company is paying out to us to a certain extent is beneficial to both sides. Time value of money aside, and knowing that for the company time will mitigate some of the financial damage from losing the "deal," eventually the company will have to come up with a new agreement, and it will cost them some money from their own pockets then.
*It also would look better for some, since I don't recall anyone saying the pay raises the other employee groups got were cost neutral. Maybe, it's just a matter of principal for some people. Accept it for what it is. But, this is the skepticism that should be expected when the question is evaded when first asked.
I know I've asked the question on here before, and perhaps I just missed the response. I even think the question might have been answered in one of the recent NN's, but to be truthful, I'm swamped with the paperwork. So, maybe you can answer and you and Carl can get on the same page and avoid the name-calling.
Is this a cost neutral TA for the company?