Originally Posted by UGBSM (Post 1888129)

. And I doubt those approaching retirement are going to want to drag out negotiations for many years entertaining unreasonable contract demands from the just say NO crowd.

Originally Posted by Flamer (Post 1888072)

Nope....i appreciate your comments. I would say a contract is a contract. If the intent was to give workers profit sharing only as a token of good will with the expectation of never having to pay a significant amount then I would say that was an incorrect assessment and fairly onerous. The company tried to buy low and sell high with the PS payments. It backfired. Now, it is looking like (for the second contract in a row) we are going to be tricked into buying high and selling low.

For another thread, but it's an American problem. Paying shareholders and execs ludicrous amounts of money is fine (even during no profits).....but giving a fraction of ONLY THE PROFITS to employees is not cool.

So personally, I don't care what wall st thinks about our PS. Actually I don't think they care about it as much as the union and mgt want you to think they care about it. But I understand it is a concern.

Originally Posted by ERflyer (Post 1888070)

We got 25% of PTIX? I thought we got ~16.7% last year?

Originally Posted by DeadHead (Post 1888077)

More Irony :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by UGBSM (Post 1888129)

No, I made $278k. But if I made that on our lowest paying equipment Im sure our more senior captains made $300k or better.

My point is that we have a very senior pilot group with the majority approaching retirement age. That is going to flavor the next couple of contracts. And pay % may not be at the top of everyones wish list. And I doubt those approaching retirement are going to want to drag out negotiations for many years entertaining unreasonable contract demands from the just say NO crowd.

So yes, the time value of money is more important the older you are I would say.

Originally Posted by TheManager (Post 1888078)

Reading for comprehension. Let me take a wild guess. You didn't test out very well for that did you?

The very next line of my post, that you chose not to include in your quoting of it, describes that any agreement, if "it doesn't meet OUR collective needs" needs to be sent back.

col·lec·tive
kəˈlektiv/

adjective

1.done by people acting as a group. "a collective protest"

taken as a whole; aggregate. "the collective power of the workforce"

noun

noun: collective; plural noun: collectives


Therefore, Einstein, my definition of substandard as it applies to any TA is:

If it does not meet our collective standards of decency, financial and beneficial needs, it will by definition be rejected, as it should.

Furthermore, the collective wants and needs are contained in the survey responses of the pilot group. Attempting to manage those expectations away from those responses and closer to what what the NC is producing is not negotiating. It's also not representing the desires of the pilots either. Look no further to find the answer as to why pilots are becoming increasing dissatisfied with Dalpa.

Nice try on the attempt focusing your frustrations on dealing with an informed and engaged pilot group. This negotiation will be more difficult, particularly in this age of instant information and communication.

The CDO debacle is proof of that. Arab Spring is proof that our incumbent union is very vulnerable, and likely never more so than right now, the eve of the TA that will determine how their precarious position and hold on power is ultimately determined.

That reaaallly bothers you. Doesn't it.

Originally Posted by Big E 757 (Post 1888090)

Ok. That's what I wanted to say but failed to do so as eloquently as you. Well done.

This is what DALPA does right before and during the TA vote...they know they haven't met our expectations so they try scaring us into voting yes for fear of the unknown/arbitrators, etc. we don't know how things will shake out because we've never sent anything back by voting no.

I'm happy to find out if this TA isn't exceptional.

Originally Posted by Flamer (Post 1888137)

Fair. Just entertain the fact that the first rejection may improve the lot in weeks....not years. Don't let FUD cloud your judgement. That is the hope of the MEC and mgt. Understand the unused leverage we keep leaving on the table. As the DOD guys say.....never take a bad deal now.