So do you.

 

He is.

Locking in gains (including some 4a2b protection) instead of hoping for future returns based on wishful thinking makes sense to me looking at $100+ oil.

 

And who knows what the labor laws are going to look like after 2012. The atmosphere is certainly not going to be more labor friendly.

 

Speaking of consequences...

When anyone negotiates a contract, what determines the outcome? Leverage. In our business, we have basically 3 types: political, contractual (the ability to say no to the company's desire to change contract sections) and finally "self help"(or the threat of self help).

At this point in time, the FDX pilots have political leverage and we have some contractual leverage. Why would we want to give up the FDA contractual leverage and then delay negotiations, to a point that we may lose political leverage, for this TA and its 3%. We might just find ourselves negotiating the rest of our contract with nothing but "self-help" as leverage. Does anyone here really like that plan? If so, vote yes, take your 3% and I'll see you on the picket line in a few years.

Let's negotiate either a complete contract now, or at least get as much as we're giving in this TA.

 

Yeah I am sure barry, nancy and harry are ready to fall on their swords for $200,000 pilots and their $1 million pac. If you arent afscme, Seiu, or UAW you aint a frog turd as far as your pro-labor party is concerned.

 

Think NMB.....

 

GB,

While I do agree that we need 4A2B protection......the exit isn't what worries me, its the entrance. Seems to me like they can enter whenever they want, spread out the lines by reducing the secondaries and R coverage, then exit just prior to peak. And with no entry protection they can do this year after year after year. This could greatly mitigate the damage done by the FTDT rule change. We work less (and get paid less) 9 or 10 months out of the year, then push the limit for peak. And with the way we snapped up open time during 4a2b....they might not ever have to exit.

And with $140 a barrel oil a not to distant memory, $100 still looks cheap. And there is no guarantee that it will skyrocket or plummet in price...point being that we are along for the ride on that. If we are really that concerned with the price of a barrel of oil perhaps we should remove the 3% and 1% to help the company offset the higher cost of oil.....

Just a thought

 

I'm not sure they would appreciate it but I have no problem helping the company out and giving them your 3% COLA.

 

You are forgetting economic climate, which directly impacts all three.

What sort of political leverage do you think we have now? If ALPA Nat'l's subject matter experts believe the company will be able to delay things until at least 2012, what makes you think they are wrong?

We will have to agree to disagree on how much contractual leverage we have now. I do not believe that it amounts to much, and it is far from enough to lead to anything positive for us.

Do you really see us as having the third type of leverage any time in the near future?

 

You may end up with Frank Lorenzo instead of Randy Babbitt.....

Instead of Open Skies and Age 65, we're talking about flight time/duty time improvements.

Don't worry, I know how popular my opinion is. I walked from the cafeteria to the sleep rooms the other night, and passed THREE television screens tuned to Glenn Beck. Oh well....