Contract negotiations
Today | 02:38 PM
#3532
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 3,150
Likes: 14
Today | 02:43 PM
#3533
On Reserve
Joined: Feb 2025
Posts: 15
Likes: 16
Jesus, does no one want to see the actual language before picking a side?
The pay rates for 2026 are more or less equal to what we have now with the retention bonus. If the TA sucks and we vote no we're not done negotiating, far from it, and you're not losing money until 2027. This isn't the "best you're gonna get" offer despite what some people will lead you to believe.
The pay rates for 2026 are more or less equal to what we have now with the retention bonus. If the TA sucks and we vote no we're not done negotiating, far from it, and you're not losing money until 2027. This isn't the "best you're gonna get" offer despite what some people will lead you to believe.
Today | 02:50 PM
#3534
Gets Wednesdays Off
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 49
Likes: 15
fine, if you disagree about the leadership then whatever. But you can’t agree with me about SLI arbitration and how much we stand to lose AND say it is poor leadership to give us this deal and that we’d be better off with nothing. Those two opinions are incompatible full stop.
does the deal suck? Of course. Was RJ to blame for everything that happened before January? Maybe, and I won’t argue with you if that’s what you believe.
bit there are facts we can agree on. Where we are today is a sunk cost. We all knew there was no more leverage, that it was lost years ago. The Iran war gave us even less leverage because now management can say that any raise is generous with where we are at with fuel and the NMB will go along with it.
the goal is to not get destroyed at SLI arbitration with SY and these rates do that. Thats what matters.
does the deal suck? Of course. Was RJ to blame for everything that happened before January? Maybe, and I won’t argue with you if that’s what you believe.
bit there are facts we can agree on. Where we are today is a sunk cost. We all knew there was no more leverage, that it was lost years ago. The Iran war gave us even less leverage because now management can say that any raise is generous with where we are at with fuel and the NMB will go along with it.
the goal is to not get destroyed at SLI arbitration with SY and these rates do that. Thats what matters.
We have a low risk no vote with this offer as it appears to not be substantially different from the current RB accrual.
Today | 04:07 PM
#3535
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,760
Likes: 106
From: 1900D CA
If it was a 5 year deal on the table, it might be worth it to vote no and try for more. But not here. Too risky to vote no. You have a quick 2 year deal and then jcba next.
What are you going to do, vote no, risk an icing by the nmb for a couple more bucks? This is a no brainer
Today | 04:07 PM
#3536
On Reserve
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 181
Likes: 14
Fair point, if there is no LTD 401K or pay higher than what is currently the RB accrual rate with some instances it's actually a pay CUT, then why vote yes? There is no downside to vote no. (Actually NO might be better because CBI is better than NavBlue) HOWEVER, that might be what the company wants so they can kick this till the JCBA several years from now. It's not TA'd yet, not to late to reject the deal
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
