![]() |
Resistance is futile
I see we have a 3.B.4. review triggered. Now that we (not me) voted to neuter that clause by adding profit sharing into the equation they seem happy to address this review and state that pilots will get nothing (as if this peer review along with a could have been increase) and is of no consequence. Had we retained the earlier language, where would we be? Ponder that, just for a minute.
|
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2879786)
I see we have a 3.B.4. review triggered. Now that we (not me) voted to neuter that clause by adding profit sharing into the equation they seem happy to address this review and state that pilots will get nothing (as if this peer review along with a could have been increase) and is of no consequence. Had we retained the earlier language, where would we be? Ponder that, just for a minute.
|
Originally Posted by Big E 757
(Post 2879812)
I can’t remember the exact catalyst, I think it was the 777 or 737-800, we had the power to hold the company hostage and achieved rates on one of the two airframes that were much higher than the industry for that aircraft....that was the day 3.B.(6 I thought) was put on the chopping block by management for the 2001 contract. It was a while ago, so my recollection is fuzzy, but managements said never again. I think it was the 777 because they cancelled half of the existing orders and blamed us.
|
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2879786)
I see we have a 3.B.4. review triggered. Now that we (not me) voted to neuter that clause by adding profit sharing into the equation they seem happy to address this review and state that pilots will get nothing (as if this peer review along with a could have been increase) and is of no consequence. Had we retained the earlier language, where would we be? Ponder that, just for a minute.
|
I'm seeing the 12 year 757 rates at AA $293, UAL $293 Delta $296. Would the old language produce any pay increases?
Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2879786)
I see we have a 3.B.4. review triggered. Now that we (not me) voted to neuter that clause by adding profit sharing into the equation they seem happy to address this review and state that pilots will get nothing (as if this peer review along with a could have been increase) and is of no consequence. Had we retained the earlier language, where would we be? Ponder that, just for a minute.
Instead we’ve had a 4-year contract give us a raise every year with full retro and profit sharing. Now we get another bite as we enter section 6 again. |
Originally Posted by Planetrain
(Post 2879921)
Still in negotiations for contract 2015. Go Team No!
Instead we’ve had a 4-year contract give us a raise every year with full retro and profit sharing. Now we get another bite as we enter section 6 again. |
Originally Posted by Planetrain
(Post 2879921)
Still in negotiations for contract 2015. Go Team No!
Instead we’ve had a 4-year contract give us a raise every year with full retro and profit sharing. Now we get another bite as we enter section 6 again. Water... bridge... but this is a lesson that needs to be told because we removed the only mechanism that would have back stopped our pay rates beyond the amendable date. This was a short sighted settlement for retro when the other employees would have stagnated as well to keep us from getting a raise. You don’t even know the value of what you had. The TVM crowd should have fought this tooth and nail. :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2879786)
I see we have a 3.B.4. review triggered. Now that we (not me) voted to neuter that clause by adding profit sharing into the equation they seem happy to address this review and state that pilots will get nothing (as if this peer review along with a could have been increase) and is of no consequence. Had we retained the earlier language, where would we be? Ponder that, just for a minute.
Yep - it would have been awesome to have kept that language but it also would have been awesome to have kept the pre-2012 PS formula. You are making it almost seem as if it was totally optional and we can just "choose" what we get. It is not optional. We are in negotiations with the company which by the way has a lot of legal and governmental tools on their side. We were also disadvantaged by being up earlier in the cycle than AMR and UAL for seemingly ever. With all of that said I see no reason why we shouldn't take a much firmer stance this cycle and if it drags on for a few years it may very well be worth it. Then again it could drag on for years and we might end up in the same place. As a wise man named Yogi once said "Predictions are hard - especially about the future." Scoop :D |
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 2879968)
I pondered it for more than a minute and the only answer I can come up with is "Who knows?" You are going into an alternate history type of thing. Maybe the company would have just rolled over and agreed to it - or we could still be going toe to toe working under C2012. What did your pondering suggest?
Yep - it would have been awesome to have kept that language but it also would have been awesome to have kept the pre-2012 PS formula. You are making it almost seem as if it was totally optional and we can just "choose" what we get. It is not optional. We are in negotiations with the company which by the way has a lot of legal and governmental tools on their side. We were also disadvantaged by being up earlier in the cycle than AMR and UAL for seemingly ever. With all of that said I see no reason why we shouldn't take a much firmer stance this cycle and if it drags on for a few years it may very well be worth it. Then again it could drag on for years and we might end up in the same place. As a wise man named Yogi once said "Predictions are hard - especially about the future." Scoop :D I’m dreaming, I know and I have to live with our collective choice and reality but it should never be forgotten what we gave up. I continue to think this was a huge one. I’m sure others have their own regrets. It struck me as strange that this is acknowledged publicly by the company when previously it was not a concern, but now is used to tout our above average compensation. Negotiations are on going and this propaganda would never make Deltanet if we were still getting raises without having settled. Maybe I’m the only one who thought a mechanism to not stagnate wages and continue raises was a TVM dream come true. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:21 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands