Originally Posted by
LeineLodge
So you're advocating we turn down industry LEADING rates (while retaining industry leading PS) to retain a clause that will provide leverage for industry AVERAGE rates in the event we end up in prolonged negotiations? It can be triggered once every 18 months IF the company decides to, and remember how they timed the non-con raises to avoid the most recent trigger just prior to section 6.
This is the very definition of trading a fat bird in the hand for a skinnier one in the bush.
This is pure spin to sell your NO. Is everyone paying attention how desperate the NO crowd is getting?
There is currently no GBH floor so it would logically follow that the 650,000 FLOOR is an improvement over what we currently do not have. Your attempt to somehow call it a cap is simply not true.
While it is true that the company could maintain compliance with 650k GBH + 46.5% of EASKs in the TATL JV, it js NOT a cap.
Next...
Again, 1E9 is a protection we do not currently have. You are attempting to spin it again as a concession. Let's try it this way: what can we do under the existing PWA to prevent GOL from painting widgets on their tails (think of Copa and Continental)? Answer: nothing
How about in the TA? 1E9, a new scope enhancement, prohibits that. As to your point that the MEC will sell it back immediately for gains, the same paranoia can be applied to any item or value in the existing or tentative agreements, which I guess maybe is your point.
1) I am not advocating a NO, I am currently undecided. I
am examining the agreement we are about to enter into and how further negotiations will play out with the stated concessions given.
2) The money is fine. I don't disparage the MEC for going after this deal, it was obviously well supported. 15-4 is a decisive vote. We are not likely to move that bar higher with the industry coalescing around this rate level. I do want the concessions and the pitfalls of the deal exposed fully to be better prepared for the future. My future may be different than yours. The goal of management to reduce profit sharing in this cycle was well defended. The same needs to continue or the only industry leading part of our compensation and contract will be sacrificed for pay rates.
3) 3B4 and profit sharing in their current form are the tools to prevent and benefit in spite of the RLAs "amendability" issue and prolonged negotiations. While not perfect, it is effective. Several negotiations at several properties have tried to get pay rate increases beyond the amendable date by considering a permanent COLA based on inflation or by a perpetual 3% increase. None have made their way into an agreement, except ours. We have it. We are about to give it upon. These are facts.
Feel free to attack my
argument.
650,000 global aircraft block hours is labeled a floor by posters, my choice to label it a cap is from the perspective of a manager planning the next virtual mergers. This provides the freedom to construct those JVs in any form beneficial to management including how to assign growth in that part of the network. Once written the JVs become the profit generating low cost operation and the argument for why we can't afford to have Delta pilots or Delta planes operate those routes. Yes, my label is ceiling.