Originally Posted by
pagey
I am most certainly not misleading anything. We already had a contract. The only thing that was changed was an LOA for 12/4, and the insurance sharing increases as well as the LOA for acft and our current hiring agreement.
AAG has said on numerous occasions that they would be taking the 700s away regardless of the outcome of your vote. So the fact that you are still flying your 700s has nothing to do with their "bluff."
So if you were offered a 61% increase at Eagle you would vote yes to 12/4? I'm not really sure what you are getting at with that statement.
As far as taking the 200s away. Sure they could, but why? They have dumped an enormous amount of money into hiring and training about 350 guys so far this year, with more to come. So now they'll just furlough all those guys? Cmon. They got what they wanted as their vision of a long term viable feed option with the 12/4 and the 200 leases are so cheap(straight from VPs mouth AFTER our vote) that they would be viable even with a sharp increase in fuel prices. Where is the motivation for AAG to park our 200s? Just to say "HAHA! we tricked you!". I doubt it. Money talks.
No, I meant that if Eagle had voted for a 61% increase it would have been at the detriment of other carriers.
It seems like in the same sentence the PSA argument was we had great work rules so the TA was acceptable, but we didnt know how good those work rules are.
AAG could whipsaw the 200's just to pull concessions from you, why pay you more than what they have to, and you will have a more vulnerable voting group.
Don't get me wrong I would apply and work at PSA just as much as Eagle, AWAC, or XJT, but it does seem weak to keep defending a mistake. Just call it a mistake a say we got scarred after Comair closed and Endeavor voted in major concessions. The MEC could have delayed, stalled negotiated longer, PSA could have gone through a least one round of NO voting. It continues to seem foolish to claim in hindsight you would have voted yes because you "benefited" from it. It defends how selfish the yes group really was, running to the trough like a hog eating slop. I dont think anyone wanted you too really fall on a sward, just suspend the drool and selfish intentions long enough to strike a collective gain or ward off a collective loss, nope.