While you're asking the AA guy, why don't you show them our TA and ask them if they think we should take it?!

 

I was pointing out that many things seem obvious when you only have partial information. For example, many people in this country think it is obvious that Iraq never had WMD's. The argument that they could have made a better decision if they were sitting in the oval office is an easy one to make until you get there. I think our current Pres has learned this the hard way.

In any event, your response was more akin to your teenage daughter answering you with the "whatever" comment, two words that young women seem to be able to twist into a wide variety of meanings with minor changes of inflection and facial expression.

Which one of us was presenting debating points?

 

Reread your post

Now who is supposing. Again you are in the very small minority on this one.

So it is supposition that QOL for the majority of pilots will go down if we lose SIBA. It is supposition the the FDAs make the company money. Got it.

As long as we are now free to make suppositions: Or the contract will be more restrictive all around but our QOL goes way down because commutable lines disapear because of 3 night in a row limitation. The company doesnt care and refuse to negotiate.

I can see how someone who thinks Fred dont care about FDAs would think that. For those of us who think we have leverage 3 to 6% is not enough to give up QOL and the ability to make the compny come to the table.

 

What if the Company never came up with the FDA concept ? man we would be so up the proverbial creek without a paddle. Leverage, once again, is within us. Even if you do not believe that, we do have other leverage. They will want to talk to us, about what you ask?

Long Haul flights (could be leverage), Getting rid of current rules that impede full ops under flag/domestic and possibly ones that will affect the new FAR's (like 7:35 block limit, 8 in 24 rules, etc.) And mostly the fact that when we enter section 6, as early as next year, they are required to bargain and if they do not then the MEC has a plan to use the RLA process. Before you say "then bargain now", oh they will, listen to what the NC video says. I believe the term they used was surface bargaining, or if we go to the NMB now it is apparent that FDX thinks the excuse of the FAA rule change will be a valid one for not closing a deal before they are published. That is what I have heard, just watched the video from BY? ALPA natl lawyer type, very enlightening.

HKG is doa, as for CGN they will just leave as bidpack flying. If you want to stand in front of that progress, go ahead but in the end ,this new LOA is a product that actually will work for many more people who would like to live in CGN. FDA's can actually improve our pairings by making more "domestic like" operations. Our long haul flying is so screwed up here, the day of flying into a continent long haul and then HUB TURNING needs to end. Long haul flying from the USA should more resemble what the other airlines have been doing for years. I realize the 757 does not cross the pond, YET. If we get 767's and they start having some crossing routes then even the 757 folks will be flying themselves over, not in first class.

I would love for SIBA or first class double deadhead trips to be around forever. Well, hate to tell you, even if you vote this down that will not stop them from finding efficiencies. I really wish I could go with your logic, but everything points to a different conclusion. Not trying to change your mind LAG, i know yours is made up. I am just expressing my reasons for thinking this is an approach that makes sense

 

I did. How is it an "attack" to say that you believe something (which you have stated) despite what I perceive as overwhelming evidence?

Small minority on this board, well, not really. I would say that there are about 10 to 2 on this board, but a lot of lurkers. In any event, neither of us really know what the actual sentiment is outside of our demographics.

All of that is just a way of steering off the issue. It really is not relevant what the majority or minority opinion is when it comes to this issue, it only matters what is proven to be correct in the end. Using the fact that the most vociferous on this board are against the TA proves nothing as to the facts we are discussing. How many times in history has the majority been proved wrong? Did not you even use this as an argument regarding how the majority voted on some previous deals?

Of course it is. What information could you know with absolute certainty that would make it not supposition?

The "got it" response is another way to try to change the focus rather than use a factual argument, incidentally. Try that in a court of law and see how well it works for you.

That is a possibility. That is the reason I stated "it cuts both ways".

If this gets voted down, and you are proven wrong, does that mean you are buying the beers?

 

From Ptarmigan:

"You are correct that I do not think the company cares all that much about the FDA issue."

"Clearly all of the above are suppositions, unless you have access to a lot more information than anyone in ALPA or others flying the line. If you do, from where did you gain this knowledge?"


Concerning your first quote, that has to be the most ridiculous statement concerning any view I have heard about this TA! The biggest item in the TA is the FDA stuff that gives the Company HUGE savings over what they presently have! Are they just being gratuitous with us or what?

On the second, you contradict what you state in the first quote, which is a supposition. I am not trying to make a personal attack here, but to me your statements are astounding! With your many presumptuous comments in favor of the TA that sometimes defy logic, I think you must be some kind of plant or mouthpiece. Either that, or I dont have a clue at all. JMO or course.

Time will tell. Just like it did with the last FDA LOA. And, if you comment on how the FDA LOA was a good deal for the pilots, I will probably mess in my pants!

 

This is a treadmill. Sure they are required to bargain they just arent required to give anything up just like this TA. I dont think they gave anything up at all I think we did. I am not standing in the way of progress I am all for it, I just think we should see some too. Not trying to change your mind I guess you have accepted 4A2b.

 

"Lots of spouting off about how things are and how the leadership should do this or that without any idea about what the actual issues are."

No attack here.

I said you were in a small minority about your view that FDX does not care about the FDAs. I stand by it.

I will be glad to make a beer bet. Like I said if this passes I dont think we will have a contract for 4 years. If it fails I bet we have a better TA in 2 years. Lets split the difference 3 years in either case for the bet.

 

NOT IN THE LEAST, hence my scree name! I have been and will continue to be unhappy with 4a2b until we get it removed or properly fixed. However, I understand the lack of "leverage" we have to fix it right now. if you listen to the comm from the Union, you must not believe them? It will be fixed in a full CBA, I will not vote for one that doesn't. Going forward, this little fix is at least something positive out of the grievance process.

I have made a value judgment, will 4a2b hurt me AGAIN before it gets fixed? Probably not, and if it does I would rather have at least some form of limitations and a way to get out of it, becasue if we turn this down there will be no protection of any kind if we go back in before we get a real fix.

So, no I am not happy or accepted 4a2b. I have never expected a retro check though and accepting this deal at least puts some money in the game. Think of this, everyone is touting 500+ new hires, that will take 2 years. While they are hiring they cant use it and we should have a full CBA in 18-24 months.

In order to use 4a2b again they would have to 1) stop hiring 2) probably have a significant period of downturn 3) not have the benefit of age 65 AND a 3 to 2 pilot aircraft conversion. Is it possible? sure but that is my last point, we would be better off with something than nothing and i think we have time on our side to fix it. That is why I am not letting this thorn get in the way of some gains now. Sorry for the length, 4a2b does get my pressure up too. If I did not believe ALPA I would vote no, but what reason would they have to tell us the total fix in not attainable now?

 

How about if Saudi Arabia becomes the next unstable arab country and oil goes over $200/barrel? Would that be your definition of a, "significant period of downturn?"

and ...

As far as your, "What reason would they have to tell us the total fix in not attainable now?" question goes ... after attending the road show I am very worried that the NC's "cost neutral" strategy might be the reason? It doesn't make any sense to me?