How do you figure that the TVM will be diluted. If anything it will become more apparent that it IS important. With each passing day, remaining at the same payrates, we will need MORE to counter the inflation. Just ax an American pilot how much they lost in their fight all those years... due to inflation..... So the real question becomes, when does the pain due to that loss become unbearable? Management will probably have a simple chart that at some point will show they can allow a 30% pay increase without adversely affecting overall costs. They can hold out until that point is reached. Can we? If TVM is a fantasy, we sure can... if it is real (Ask Mr Buffett about that) we certainly have to decide when it is in our best interest to "cut our losses".

T,

About LBP...

In these discussions, you get way more points for being right, than repetitive. In the case of LBP, multiple posters have made very cogent and clear arguments to show how it would hurt the pilot group. Love your persistence and all, but none of those arguments ever seem register with you.

At any rate, trying to piggyback on the pay banding discussion to advance it doesn't look like a winner. You're actually taking the pay banding idea, and reducing 4 categories (management's wet dream) into one category: pilot. That's management's ultimate multiple orgasm scenario, where they get to tie us, gag us, and go a little "medieval" on us.

LBP is a nice idea, when you look at it individually, and only consider the pipe dream of sitting in any small airplane you want, right until you start thinking about the obvious negative consequences, and all the little gems in the "unintended consequence" category.

At any rate, I think you argued the point yourself: it would be a terrible idea for any group with LBP to ever merge again.

Believe it or not, I really didn't want to talk about it anymore because I know I am spitting in the wind. I am not sure how management would "go medieval" on us with a single pay scale. I know it is not a perfect system, none of them are. The overriding difference in then and now vis a vis the 2 systems is that we no longer have the luxury of the DB retirement plan to enjoy seniority and then suck it up. That is huge. I think that now one has to make a choice, and it has to be made early on in one's career. Go for money, or lifestyle. I do not believe that those 2 have to be mutually exclusive.

Push throttle, get paid. Bid for QOL. Seems simple to me.

You can't do that under the RLA.
The duration and the amendable date have to match.

Because, it's all about money for arbitrators. If we can't explain why a straight ratio integration 1:1 doesn't hurt Delta pilots money-wise, the arbitrator has no reason not to integrate straight ratio 1:1. I can't make that argument if there is a longevity based pay system and I'm good at making arguments. :)

Can you?

I'm not questioning your statement, but why can't there be a clause in the CBA that states, "upon the amendable date of the PWA, without an agreement of both parties of pay/work rules, the amendable date of said PWA is extended one year, with an XX% increase in rates?"

In that instance, the "amendable date" and "duration" would always match.

From the way I understand it, a lot of guys signed of on C2012, and the low pay raises, because we would be right back at the table for another bite at the apple in 2015. If we don't actually get to bite until 2017, or 2018, then maybe we should have held out for bigger pay raises. At some point, the streams cross. :)

That sucks. Someone should change that. :confused:

Hey. I like how you think. ;)

No matter how we structure our pay banding (or not) we can't allow ourselves to be put in a position where a low longevity group could get a realistic bite at the relative integration apple. Loganville Holdings is the only way it can be done that guarantees we don't gamble with giving a group like that a windfall.

As for the guaranteed COLA increases, I like it and it needs to be seriously considered.