Originally Posted by
80ktsClamp
We squeaked in above 2.5 billion at around 2.7 billion. Let's do the math:
15% (pre C2012) of 2.5 billion is 375,000,000 vs. 10% (C2012) of 2.5 billion is 250,000,000.
20% (the amount above 2.5 billion) of 200,000,000 is 40,000,000.
415,000,000 (pre C2012 concessionary value) is more than 290,000,000 (C2012 value), right?
That works out to be about a 6000 dollar reduction for me.
That is a 30.2% reduction in profit sharing money that we could have had. We gave up something we didn't need to give up in C2012. Trying to spin it any other way helps the DPA.
Okaaay. We have been over this before...
Did you account for the other things in C2012, balanced against the six grand?
And do you fly reserve? Because that pays more as well, ALV minus two. That is an increase.
The Average Daily Guarantee protects junior guys from getting lines that pay less than reserve. That is an increase.
If you are junior, the new manning formula creates more lines, and that is certainly worth something to commuters.
And if you fly the 88, you get the 90 rate. Sort of an increase. You still have to fly a Mad Dog, and wonder "what is it doing now?"
More pay for vacation, training, SLI, and sick leave. Do you sense a trend? Because those are increases too.
88 Boeing 717s. That's a bunch of first time captains, each with a bigger W2 than the year before.
19.7 percent on top of those things, the cumulative hourly pay increases over the life of the TA. Two percent of that is what your profit sharing added up to in costing the agreement, and I would trade it all away for higher rates any day of the week! Profit sharing has rarely been a windfall for pilots, and I would rather have pay protected during downturns in the economy.
19.7 percent is the second biggest increase in our group's history, and the initial raise is bigger than the day-one increases of C2K.
And what if you are wrong in your assumptions that we should have sent it back? What if that resulted in no deal, and a three year wait for the NMB? Because that would incur a burden of 37 percent on the subsequent TA, just to crawl
back to what you rejected in C2012, not including the improvements outside of hourly rates, which assumes more than I am guilty of assuming.
I don't think anything about C2012 "helps" the DPA. They decided to make the contract a political issue, and a referendum on ALPA, and they lost.
The DPA is now reduced to getting kicked out of lounges in domiciles where they aren't based, and threatening ALPA volunteers with subpoenas and seizure of property for their wackaloon hacking lawsuit. They don't have the cards, they don't have answers to the hard questions about actually running a union or negotiating a contract, but they do have to pay off Lee Seham.