Originally Posted by
Bluedriver
To Softpay, no, not entirely well stated. Why does it have to be one OR the other. IF we are to give any relief, it should be well compensated.
And... it will be very difficult to ever get this industry standard benefit called Profit Sharing from a company so emotionally attached to not sharing. It's MUCH more difficult to get PS when you don't have something the company wants from you as a group. That's just reality.
To antbar, I generally agree with your post, right up until the end. IF any part of the scope is to be relaxed to allow this codeshare, it should come with great compensation to address the monetary value of the codeshare/scope and to compensate for the additional risk pilots take on from the scope changes.
Ha, Payne beat me to it.
You guys are absolutely right, I can see how that sounded like I don’t want money to be a part of the equation. So let me clarify.
I have no problem with getting better compensation in a TA #2. But what I was trying to encourage in others is to not look at this from the perspective of “they aren’t paying me enough to give up scope protections,” but rather “lock up this language in a very limited way that gives us more power and oh, by the way, more money also.” The money doesn’t mean a thing without the words.
Most folks seem to get this, but if you wouldn’t vote for this TA now, but would vote for the exact same TA with 20% profit sharing, you’re looking at the problem wrong.
Thanks Payne for pointing out the mistake.