Originally Posted by
newKnow
Ok. I'm your Huckleberry....
Let's start with the first allegation and go from there....
From the letter:
While the author aggressively attacks the accuracy of the claim of the 4% offset, he never disputes the fact that there was at least SOME offset of the initial 8% raise by the concessions. His only claim seems to be that the original poster can't prove it's exactly 4%.
Do you and the former council chair really think it mattered to the pilot group whether or not the 8% raise was offset by 4%, or 1%, ummm because we didn't.
The fact is, the 8% raise WAS offset by numerous concessions. (Sick leave changes, JV language, LC/FO flying, productivity increases, etc.). That's all that mattered to any of us.
Personally, I can come up with numerous reasons why, for most of us, the 8% raise would have been gobbled up by the other concessions in the TA. But, I won't get into it right now. But, if you want me to, I can.
Your wait is over. So, let's go....
OK - let's take them one at a time.
Sick Leave - what did you lose here? The ability to call in sick (a lot) when you're not sick? You didn't lose any sick leave credit hours. You didn't lose the value of pay for using any sick leave. You simply may be required to provide some proof that you're actually eligible to use this benefit. Is that so unreasonable? And what about the
improvements in this area? FAA leave, disability bank, improvements to psychiatric benefits. Isn't it quite possible that those improvements exceeded any perceived concession of the sick leave language?
JV language - what about the
improvements in scope? Increased fragmentation protection, improved affiliate language, DCI fleet reduction, block hour ratio? Isn't it quite possible that those improvements exceeded the perceived value of the JV language change?
LC/FO and other productivity increases - what about all of the
improvements in work rules? Reroute, end of month carryover improvements, vacation pay, CQ pay, reserve short call credit, etc. Isn't it quite possible that those improvements exceeded the value of the LC/FO change?
And back to the core issue - so, it doesn't bother you that a local council, despite being briefed extensively on all of the exact costing of the various issues, makes a claim that is no where near reality? While simultaneously ignoring the offsetting improvements in each of these areas?
Next?