|
|
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1681454)
Here's the $64k question: Do you believe it possible to have a "concession" free contract? And more to the point, is it paramount, and essential that C15 be "concession" free? Is anything that contains a "concession" an automatic no vote from you? Sorry... 3 questions....
|
Originally Posted by FL370
(Post 1681461)
What are you willing to give up in the current contract?
Ya wanna have THAT discussion? :D |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1681471)
I cannot answer that because I haven't made any ultimatums stating that I wouldn't. I will have to see any TA that comes out, and if on the whole it is acceptable, I will vote yes. But just off the top of my I'd give up bigger pays more. ;)
Ya wanna have THAT discussion? :D |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1681471)
I cannot answer that because I haven't made any ultimatums stating that I wouldn't. I will have to see any TA that comes out, and if on the whole it is acceptable, I will vote yes. But just off the top of my I'd give up bigger pays more. ;)
Ya wanna have THAT discussion? :D |
Originally Posted by illini90
(Post 1681328)
I was in the gym yesterday, so I saw the end of the Argentina game. I'm a huge hockey fan, and have grown to like the shootout in hockey. However, I would never want to see a shootout in an NHL playoff game, because it's not how the game is played. However, for regular season, when I have to work in the morning, it's an entertaining way to end a tie game, giving the goalie and the shooter about an even shot at it. Watching the shootout in the soccer game yesterday was a horrible way to end a World Cup game, and another reason, after the fake injuries, not to bother with it. Maybe I was seeing it wrong, but to me, a shootout looks like the goalie diving in a random direction when the shooter kicks the ball. If it hits him, great for the goalie. For the shooter, the goal is huge, so not much skill there. I don't get it...
In lieu of a shootout, they could grant more substitutes or take a player away from each side (like 4 x 4 in Hockey). Either way it alters the way the game is played. I'd like to see the shootout spot pushed back to the top of the 18 yard box. At least give the goalie a chance to react and not guess. |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1681454)
I am pretty sure that somewhere in my billion+ posts that I have been a staunch advocate of getting more money. Even to the point of saying that I am not in favor of paying for any lower end scope, and the reasons why I am in that camp. (For which, I might add I have been accused of "pulling up the ladder") My argument is simply that management will have wants/desires and other things too and those cannot be discounted in the negotiations. That is my only point. I am not, as some seem to be accusing me of, carrying management's water. As long as you recognize and acknowledge that ne-go-tia-tions are a two way street, you and I are making a form of progress. And to go along with that thesis, a good corollary might be to acknowledge that giving management something might not necessarily be a "concession". But I am sure that you will say that it is. OK then, let's run with that. ANYTHING that we give management is a concession. Here's the $64k question: Do you believe it possible to have a "concession" free contract? And more to the point, is it paramount, and essential that C15 be "concession" free? Is anything that contains a "concession" an automatic no vote from you? Sorry... 3 questions....
Being realistic probably not possible. It is looking like we will have a very rare opportunity in this business - back to back upside contracts. When is the last time that has happened? I have heard 25+ year guys say that this will be a first for them. Timing looks good for us. However, even though we will have a net positive contract, management will have their wants and desires - it will have some concessions - after all it is a "negotiation." Now with that said, we will try to minimize what we give on (obviously) and maximize what we get. This very topic came up yesterday at the council 16 meeting. Management always wants something. We always want something. At times one side or the other has a little more leverage. I would love a contract where we gain in every single item but how do we do that? Scoop - Just my 2 cents. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1681056)
I think you are way off on the retirement numbers. The plan had over 5 billion in obligations and only 1 billion in assets. If it was only short 900 million in funding it would not even have been considered in distress and termination would not have been possible.
I do agree that all the different pots of money that have come are way since the bankruptcy seem to be forgotten by many. You argue about the positioning of the deck chairs. The iceberg was created of promises made in a falling revenue environment and management set a course straight for the iceberg after the imagining of ERISA legislation made a place to dump the toxic obligations. Hell, I am only slightly above a nobody, but I was a first party witness to the fact management planned bankruptcy prior to the ratification of Contract 2000. Back then they thought the hole would be 5.5 bn. Warren Buffett was so proud of his analysis, he republished his 1976 letter to investors on this topic in Berkshire Hathaway's 2013 annual report. The point being, not only was the conclusion a mathematical certainty, but when your Company hires a McKinsey and Co resturcturing expert to be CEO, then the plan is already being executed. ALPA did not screw you. ALPA mitigated the harm as best they could while management broke promises to everyone. Warren Buffett's point was, defined benefit plans in an inflationary environment are an unsustainable ponzi scheme destined to fail. Michael Lewis reiterated this theme in his book Boomerang, travels in the New Third World. The airlines were the canaries the coal mine. I expect IBM to dump theirs in the not too distant future. |
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 1681475)
Being realistic probably not possible. It is looking like we will have a very rare opportunity in this business - back to back upside contracts. When is the last time that has happened? I have heard 25+ year guys say that this will be a first for them. Timing looks good for us.
However, even though we will have a net positive contract, management will have their wants and desires - it will have some concessions - after all it is a "negotiation." Now with that said, we will try to minimize what we give on (obviously) and maximize what we get. This very topic came up yesterday at the council 16 meeting. Management always wants something. We always want something. At times one side or the other has a little more leverage. I would love a contract where we gain in every single item but how do we do that? Scoop - Just my 2 cents. |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1681471)
I cannot answer that because I haven't made any ultimatums stating that I wouldn't. I will have to see any TA that comes out, and if on the whole it is acceptable, I will vote yes. But just off the top of my I'd give up bigger pays more. ;)
Ya wanna have THAT discussion? :D Apologies if you've already answered this...on what what metric do you base LGP? |
Originally Posted by finis72
(Post 1681472)
Please T, not again
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:20 AM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands