OK J Dawg now i understand. Well I hope the EB sends us daily updates on theIPNN on how we are doing for 2009. Maybe that will help put the squeeze on those who haven't given something up yet.

Have a good weekend Y'all

What position do you think the company will negotiate from if we show them that we will eat our young (ie. send 300 guys to the street)?

I meant 30 million for the first year.....I scanned over the rest.....the 30 million was enough to make me worried. I am hoping and praying that we step up to the plate. I just signed up for more RDG.....

Those in the bottom 300 may want to consider doing the entire first year of RDG or JS.

I hear people (in the bottom 300) say "I can only afford one or 2 periods of reduced pay".

However, if we do not meet the $40 million mark, then all 300 will be making a lot less than 1/2 pay.

Can you afford that???

Good luck to all, and thanks for whatever you can do.

They are not spending less money. They have already decide that they can run the system w/ 300 less pilots. So, the remaining salaries total X.

Now we can divide X by all the pilots any way we see fit. ie..voluntary leaves, or they cut 300.

To them they are still paying X. So, again less money is not being spent.

N_H

They aren't spending less money? You better rethink that. They say they need to CUT COSTS. We are cutting COSTS for them, while keeping everybody on the property, to the tune of $100-150 million.

They'll be back for more.

notadog,

Have you seen the presentation by the IPA showing the staffing model? You can find it on the IPAs web page, inside the volunteer job protection tab, under resources. It seems to me that while money is the yardstick, staffing is the problem.

JB

Ok, agreed they will be spending less money.

It is our decision if they spend less by taking leaves & etc., or if they spend less by furloughs.

I, too, worry that they will want to come back for more.

N_H

We are not eating our young. The company is holding them hostage, pushing for concessions and trying to find a way to make us , the pilots , look uncaring in the eyes of the most junior. We have limited power and ability to stop the company from putting what they considered a liability on the street, and they do consider these people a liability. We are a cost to be minimized or eliminated. We can through the MOU try to salvage something for our people, if we fail it will be because the company engineered it to fail.

That, plus the 2000+ pilots who care more about their toys than helping out a brother.