You do know that an 'executive summary' from a MEC/NC that ratified a contract for endorsement is likely to have the same biases that are inherent in any ratified LOA/Contract under ALPA, don't you? Sorry people, but the bottom line is that we have to read everything, ask the appropriate questions, and make an informed decision when voting. There is no cheat sheet or gouge with all the 'right' answers. Boo hoo, wah, all you want but our 1.95% doesn't entitle us to be any more dopey with our decisions and analysis than our taxes do.

Tom has a mat? I thought he died 9 yrs ago.:confused:





:D

Hey but just think - if you don't know where all the Outback steakhouses and outlet malls are worldwide, you will soon. :D

Don't forget Pizza Hut and Poppies Chicken. I can see it now, "there aint no food court anywheres round here.";)

I'll give you the answer "O" gave us during the 727 LCA meeting last week. He prefaced it by saying that this would have been his first choice of options the help the manning. He said the people who would be targeted would not be the 60-65 guys/gals. They only have a few years left on property, so they wouldn't get it offered to them. The ones they would want to target are the 55-60 year olds. He said the problem is with the bean counters. Apparently the IRS funding rules for pension plans change once you start offering early retirements. You have to fund it at a higher rate for everyone from the most junior offered to the most senior, whether or not they take it. (I'm not sure if this is the exact rule, but the gist was that it was too expensive). So the accountants shot that down as too expensive.

Then he went into a little talk about how he was conducting his own "unofficial" poll, and he didn't think that the company would get too many takers due to senior guys taking a hit on their B-plan, lots of vacation, sick, etc. I think he was a little in the weeds on that part. I actually would like to see ALPA conduct a survey of the 55-60 year olds on the list and come right out and ask them if they were able to retire now without penalty, would they?

Someone mentioned Continental's early buy out, and "O" said the difference was that CAL didn't have an A-plan.

Carryover was brought up, and "O" said that it has been reduced to as much as possible. Someone in the audience asked about bidding quarterly to further reduce carryover. "O" said that was an interesting idea, and he doesn't know if anyone has looked at that. He said he would bring it up.

Don't shoot the messenger... I'm just a plumber...

Survey may be unreliable
 

It couldn't hurt to ask, but keep in mind that pilots have always said one thing about their retirement plans and then changed their mind at the last minute. The pen seems to weigh a hundred pounds when it comes to actually signing that paper, and guys say to themselves "just one more year" or "first let's see what I can hold on the next bid", etc.

Screw those guys, I'd do it tomorrow. Outta the way, old man! :D

The difference is in the mindset of the company.

This little nugget tells me all I need to know.

Apparently "O" is unable to pick up an MD11 bidpack and look at it....

You could fix half the C/O problems tomorrow and it would not cost the company a nickle. Simply quit rewarding CIC with priority makeup and reserve leveling; the demand will drop significantly. It would not put more hours into the bid pack; of course than you would have the open time Ho's flying the 100 hour months.