Originally Posted by
TED74
...and I believe he is correct. Our current rate would not be the previously negotiated rate, it would be where we stand now because of the snap up with 3B4. The 3B4 raise we got over a year ago (something like .5%) would have been larger to arrive at today's current rate. And PS would be larger too. What am I missing?
This is the reason the company wants to wipe out 3B4. It makes it much easier (next time if not this contract) to reduce PS.
I will concede (no pun intended) that the 3B4 might have brought up our payrates to our current rates...but I highly doubt it. The 0.55% "raise" kind of convinces me of that. The devil would be in the details.
I just think it amusing that C2K was actually applauded for removing all "scary, unpredictable" PS for "guaranteed" pay rates via a trade, but now any suggestion of the same is highly criticized.
I think the discussion fairly pointless to be honest and I am neutral on it all--so long as the company doesn't ever call a PS-for-payrates trade a "raise." I do know one thing. If we leave PS untouched and our profits tank (which I certainly don't see happening) the same guys insisting "no PS reductions" will be the first to state (loudly) "ALPA should have known this is a cyclical business and they lost their chance to lock in guaranteed pay rates."