|
|
Not one?
Not a single one? Don't make yourself irrelevant by arguing over facts. That simply is not true. And it's difficult to use fedex because that is an apple to pears comparison. |
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1878913)
The sales push is on.
http://i.imgur.com/rvnEI6t.gif Or pulled. :D Carl |
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 1878874)
I will vote for any gain I believe can't be made up for if we head back to the table.
If you believe the rumored 9-6-4-4 over 3 years can be beat, I invite you to show the math(also accounting for time value of money) on how we can head back to the table and within 3 years get the gains you're looking for plus make up for extra pay not earned due to being at the table. No rhetoric. Just the math. Just like if the offer was 8-4-3-3.. there's NO WAY you can ever know for sure if you can do better. It's a question of trust and fortitude. Do you trust that the company (management) is giving you an honest, fair proposal? Do you trust that your union is giving their all, is willing to say "No" and fight for a better deal? Do you have the fortitude to say "NO.. I'm worth more, I'm not asking for anything unreasonable". My Opinion- AA Pilots hurt you and us (am a UAL pilot) by accepting an offer that didn't include PS. Now, it's up to you guys to hold what you have with regards to PS. [If 9-6-4-4 AND no change to your PS is the offer.. what would that look like for a regular line pilot's W-2 for 2014, 2015 and 2016?] I wish you guys luck as we'll have to use what you get to push for a better CBA in 2020 (yeah, I expect UAL to drag out our talks that long as we've already shown our management team that we will accept a delayed CBA for pennies on the dollar for delayed retro!) Good Luck Delta Pilots~ Motch |
Originally Posted by Mem9guy
(Post 1878700)
I think I prefer the old NWA bank system. Whenever your pay rate changed, your bank balance in hours was adjusted accordingly. That way you always repayed the same amount of money that you borrowed...
|
Originally Posted by Professor
(Post 1878914)
Not one?
Not a single one? Don't make yourself irrelevant by arguing over facts. That simply is not true.
Originally Posted by Professor
(Post 1878914)
And it's difficult to use fedex because that is an apple to pears comparison.
Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1878905)
We don't lead the industry in one single section of our contract. Not one. That needs to change.
Carl I also believe that your Sick program is better than ours. What needs to happen in this upswing is that the areas where you lead, you continue. Where you lag, you match or grow when compared to others. I've always said (to many deaf ears) that a Contract isn't about 'just' payrates. It's about everything. At the end of the day, how much did you work for how much pay? On top of that, how much was added into your retirement fund? How much do you pay for benefits and how strong is your insurance? Lastly, what kind of incentive do you have to go above and beyond ie, PS, stock purchase, picking up extra flying.. etc? [All hypothetical questions..] Keep up the good fight~ Motch |
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 1878874)
Negative. Not anything. I will vote for any gain I believe can't be made up for if we head back to the table.
If you believe the rumored 9-6-4-4 over 3 years can be beat, I invite you to show the math(also accounting for time value of money) on how we can head back to the table and within 3 years get the gains you're looking for plus make up for extra pay not earned due to being at the table. No rhetoric. Just the math. I'm sorry, but all I can do is face palm. |
Motch, did you guys get full retro or partial last time?
|
Originally Posted by Professor
(Post 1878855)
This is a fair point.
But a better, or at least as good a question, is how many carriers have actually benefited by turning down section 6 contracts negotiated in good faith? One? In twenty years? Arguably zero? Dunno. I think it all has to do with perspective. Sure you could agree with the above statement...but you can also add that in all but very few aspects DAL pay rates exceed those of all passenger carriers. For now. |
Originally Posted by Gunfighter
(Post 1878899)
Voting yes just because you want the pay now is about as wise an a NYC 7ER F/O picking up open time on Memorial Day today just because they have the weekend off and want to "fill up" for the month. I would advise them to have a little confidence, be patient and take a small risk waiting for the Green Slip. Patience and self discipline will be rewarded.
Are you willing to take two years of a substandard pay raise plus compound interest rather than be patient for an industry leading contract from a company who is making Billions of dollars in large part due to our decade old bankruptcy concessions? I don't deny the time value of money, I also know that time is on our side in this negotiation. The company is on record as saying they have taken labor risk off the table. The closer we are to the end of the contract, the more labor risk enters the picture. The vote yes now mentality witnessed in C2012 is exactly the reason I've invested every penny of that small pay raise in my personal Vote NO Fund. I wish more of us had done the same. If the first offer is a TA that meets your survey inputs, please be honest and vote yes. If the initial TA falls short, you owe it to yourself and the other 12k pilots to vote no. A TA is not the "first offer" by any stretch, there have been EIGHT meetings of the MEC in 2015 (and additional Special Meetings in late 2014) for the Reps and the NC to direct, refine, and redirect the NC. They have and will say "NO" multiple times by the time it reaches the MEC for a TA vote. If the MEC decides to send it to us, then we as line pilots will have the opportunity to vet it again. If it meets my personal requirements and provides an increase in contract value appropriately I will vote yes. If it doesn't stack up to what I think is reasonable and achievable, I'll vote No! |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:40 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands