Originally Posted by
newKnow
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?
Thank you New...good points made. But you are correct, this has been asked and answered in a lot of different ways in different places. The point for me is RA has many different audiences and many different messages to deliver. I don't care if he is factoring in the cost savings on crack spreads from the refinery deal amortized out over the decrease in 50 seat airframes in the system, I just care about what it means to me and I see gains in virtually every section.
The truth is RA could be telling Wall Street types that overall it is cost neutral, and then walk into the adjoining room and tell someone else that as a segment of the balance sheet "pilot costs" have increased $450 million...for Carl and others to insist that he is "lying" to one group is disingenuous at best, an outright prevarication at worst...and btw, I did not call Carl any names as I hate gophers and I respect his work in that area...(I did however infer that the bacon bits gent is somewhat obtuse and I shall stand by that pending further evidence)