![]() |
|
Originally Posted by Hawaii50
(Post 1814499)
if we look at anything the company may want as a concession we're setting ourselves up to be iced for as long as the company can.
With profit sharing progged at 20% or higher for the next couple of years, why fear a slow roll? The company is pushing for an early deal. They want "labor risk off the table." The threat of ice time is more leverage...for US. |
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1814504)
Bring it!
With profit sharing progged at 20% or higher for the next couple of years, why fear a slow roll? The company is pushing for an early deal. They want "labor risk off the table." The threat of ice time is more leverage...for US. |
Originally Posted by shiznit
(Post 1814435)
FTB and I don't always agree on things, but we don't resort to hurling trite and insulting comments.
I'm not here to throw insults. I'm definitely not here to further the conversation. I'm not even here to make a difference. I'm not here to learn either. I'm just here for the gang bang. |
Me and Whiz go back. He's good people.
I know he works hard for the pilots although I'm at a fog at some of the higher level stuff you guys talk about. I'm rather simple and have my little jumbo RJ scope fiefdom and am cool hanging out right there. The one thing about the internet is you're allowed to go further than you normally would in how you talk to people. I've been insulted and unfortunately been insulting (unless were talking about Alaskan, than that was so deserved.... jk). My strategy is when someone is letting you have it, take the high road for as long as you can not because you'll make them look bad or something like that, but rather because you won't regret what you wrote if you do. I think I'd like all of you if we were flying a trip. But no offense. I think I would like Timbo the most. Until the violations piled up and I ended up wishing I had purchased loss of license insurance. Damn you Timbo. Whiz = Shiz. Or so my all knowing autocorrect says. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1814482)
The problem is: A) Look at all that room. B) Look at that belt. C) There is no way one punch fixes it. If he had punched it three times and half the lights came on and he looked at it and shrugged and went anyways. That's legit. |
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1814422)
In C12, it was widely reported that the company opened with 0% raises. The company came to ALPA to get an early deal, but offered 0%! Yet ALPA didn't walk out.
If the company brings any sort of insulting nonsense like that this time, after publicly yearning for an early deal, I hope ALPA has the stores (and common sense) to walk away for a good while. And stores = stones. :D Scoop |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1814516)
http://images.yuku.com/image/gif/6fc...341794a4_t.gif
I'm not here to throw insults. I'm definitely not here to further the conversation. I'm not even here to make a difference. I'm not here to learn either. I'm just here for the gang bang. |
I think it's good we talk about PS because there is one thing to hash out, is which one you think is better:
Option A: $150K flight pay + $30K PS = $180K. Option B: $180K flight pay. Some guys will look at A and say that over the life of C2015 the chances are very good that PS is nearly guaranteed money and since its a % of your flight pay the more I fly the more I make- so leave PS alone. We will be profitable for some time, probably profitable even in the next downturn. Some guys will say that $30K PS is at risk, it isn't guaranteed and it could go away. Give me $180K in hard pay. Now the bigger question is would someone who prefers Option B be okay with say... $170K hard pay over Option A? Because again it's guaranteed. To me when I hear "at-risk pay" being bandied about it sounds more like reducing W2 for the sake of having more guaranteed pay. So I cringe. Personally I'm for Option A because I'll hedge my bet that over the next few years (with RA in charge) we're probably profitable. But it's a bet. I think some guys are probably not willing to make that bet. Thoughts *****es? |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1814418)
If APC isn't a statistically significant tool and not causing the pilot group to negotiate against itself, then why can't we talk here about the contract again?
|
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1814552)
I think it's good we talk about PS because there is one thing to hash out, is which one you think is better:
Option A: $150K flight pay + $30K PS = $180K. Option B: $180K flight pay. Some guys will look at A and say well that over the life of C2015 chances are that PS is guaranteed and its a %, so the more I fly the more I make so leave PS untouched. We will be profitable for some time, probably profitable even in the next downturn. Some guys will say that $30K PS is at risk, it isn't guaranteed and it could go away. Give me $180K in hard pay. Now the bigger question is would someone who prefers Option B be okay with say I'm actually fine with $170K hard pay over Option A, because at least it's guaranteed. To me when I hear "at-risk pay" being bandied about it sounds more like reducing W2 for the sake of having more guaranteed pay. Personally I'm for Option A, I'll hedge my bet the next few years with RA in charge we're profitable. But it's a bet I think some guys are probably not willing to make. Thoughts *****es? That all said, I'm with Sink. I think we're better off trying to hash out how we want to improve our contract rather than guessing what the company wants (CDOs anyone?) and working ourselves up about it. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:30 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands