Maybe the arbitrator took into account that back in 2007 the retirement age changed so everyone at the top got five more years, plenty of money to help offset a cola. Then everyone one else will have to wait for the next contract. Then again he probably does not care what happened in the past!
Originally Posted by
PolicyWonk
I would like to know how much we have saved the company by virtue of flying the 777 at MD-11 rates instead of A-380 rates.
I understand that there were misunderstandings during negotiations in 2006. I'm not pointing fingers.
I'm glad to know how much the TA wll cost, compared to the stasis imposed by an impartial arbitrator on this issue.
But I'd also like two other numbers, and I think the mediator should also know them if he doesn't already. If he doesn't, that's our fault.
How much more will this contract cost if we deduct what we lost on the A-380/777 payrates misunderstanding? Past tense.
And how much will we lose on this misunderstanding, going forward?
Again, compared to how we are benefiting by the topline numbers that I deem reliable. I'm not contesting that methodology, but then, I'm nearly ignorant of that series of formulation.
Let's try a thought experiment. Try to envisage yourself nine years ago deliberating on that TA?
Regardless of how you voted, if there were only two payscales (the lower two), would you have voted in the affirmative?
If there was no A-380 payrate, would you have contented yourself with an A-plan basis of 260? Would it have passed? I think not. It would have required at least 300. Then. Nevermind the interim profligate creation of currency.
I'd like to see those two numbers presented to us. One looking backwards. One looking forwards. The A-380 misunderstanding.
I think it will help the mediator see things our way.
260 basis was based on a misunderstanding. Nine years ago.
Please, please, don't misinterpret this as advocacy of a third payrate. That would delay a potentially quick remedy.