Originally Posted by
Bill80
Thank you for being respectful. I'm not trying to divide or settle. I voted against the TA. I'm trying to be realistic.
None of the airlines you are comparing had a pension, nor tried to increase it. To think that doubling the pension while achieving all the other desired gains is in the realm of possible is ridiculous. It's like Dr. Evil going back in time to 1969 and demanding a ransom of $100 billion dollars and everyone in the Oval office starts laughing at the absurdity of the request.
There's no reason we don't deserve an industry leading contract. But wasting further time trying to increase the pension will prove a fool's errand and cost us time and money. Which by the way, increases economic risk and uncertainty. How long do you think the pax airlines new contracts will be viable at any airline other than Delta (the only one that's managed decently) if demand starts dropping off? This has played out before.
FWIW I don't think you are hurting us as a group. I do think the perspective that FedEx is down in the last few months so we must accept a sub-par contract is wrong. Performance over the life of the past contract should be the measuring stick, though even that would be flawed. Market rate is the real indicator of what we should expect, and the market says more than TA1. A lot more.
"But wasting further time trying to increase the pension will prove a fool's errand and cost us time and money."
Couldn't agree more. Let's $h!tcan the whole a-plan increase push, ax the QOL gives, give us market rates, max out DC and COC, and lets be done.