Sort of.

This is only true if we get 100% retro pay, and even then you lose the time that you would have had the signing bonus. If we got (per the prevailing rumor) 9% at signing in - say - July, that is immediate monies that can go to work. If it takes until January, that is 6 months that you have lost forever. I am not advocating anything, but you need to be honest with the numbers. If 6 months to a year (or whatever time) of lost increase is acceptable, then discount it and your statement is correct. A 777B with greenies for 6 months, the loss is pretty significant however.

Fire away.

 

If you are a few years from retirement, the difference in what you will accumulate should not significantly affect your position. As a new hire pilot years ago, I appreciated the guys that went before and made the sacrifices for a good contract. To frame this as a young vs old is BS! Work as a unified group to bring everyone's wages and work rules up and stop acting as independent contractors.

 

This only illustrates the extraordinary amount of leverage we hold this time around. We should be in no hurry to part with this. No hurry at all.

 

I think you mean section 6. And I agree with the majority of this post. However if they come up with a TA that includes a reduction in PS and a pay increase, I'll look at it. It had better be pretty significant in terms of that pay increase, and I will deduct the percentage of pay increase from the loss of PS and make my decision based on that. I told my reps that I would be pretty unhappy if they did negotiate PS down in this, but never say never I guess.

 

Help me out here. What does "hurry" mean? Not trying to be obtuse or anything like that, just wondering. When I read this over and over, it seems that the writers (that use the word hurry) have a time frame in mind and I wonder what that time frame is. If the company came to us tomorrow and said a 25% pay increase and no other changes to the contract, would that be acceptable? Is that "hurrying"? Do the negotiators just have to wait 6 months or 9 months or a year to get a TA? Does that make the company sweat or something?

I agree that we have leverage, and I trust the negotiators to use that leverage, but I think that them just saying no to drag out negotiations for some unknown reason is foolish. YMMV

 

Vapor TA thoughts here: I was reading about how our contract was when I started. 7 weeks of vacation, trips touching, cap, authorized leave, 300 hours of annual sick leave, pension, the list goes on.

I've tried to make this point before. They are playing chess. The game is called "slow boil". As in, gently direct us into the pot and slowly increase the heat. Before you know it, it's too hot to do anything about your predicament, you're cooked.

I made the point in C2012 that the sick leave section gave the company too much leeway to abuse us for using sick leave. Way too many loopholes for the company. I was flatly dismissed by my reps, and a lot of folks on here. "no, the company would never do that!" ---now we have an entire department dedicated to doing just that, and it wasn't enough for them. Now they want more.

Our predicament will be this if we continue to sell our protections for pay: You will be beholden to fly a lot more, with less control of your schedule and your life in order to make a living. Verifying your sick leave may become such a hassle that you may just decide to fly sick (or not well) instead of dealing with the paper chase. But it's not just sick leave.

If we are not careful, they'll have us in the trick bag. The last thing they'll come for is the money. Once they get us strapped to the wheel, then they come for the compensation and we can do nothing to stop it because of: Sick leave, Joint Ventures, Scope, Recovery Compacts, Staffing Requirements and so on. In other words, when they come for the money and you decide you want a day off or want to start pursuing other avenues of work, forget it. We Own You.

Don't get Owned. That's the game we need to be playing.

One last thing: The concept that you have to give to get in negotiations is a farce. We aren't negotiating a peace treaty or a divorce. When a Goldman Sachs employee goes into his boss and asks for a raise following a record-breaking year, does his boss ask him what he's going to give up for that raise? We are making billions because of our efforts. Our execs haven't been asked to give up anything for their raises. Our contracts 'matured' because of incremental gains, not from selling contractual protections that are essential to our careers.

 

So the senior guys should just man up and take one for the team? News flash. They already did. See DAL BK and pensions.

 

Hurrying as in pushing out a substandard TA with the "Time Value of Money," selling point bandied about. As another poster pointed out, with PS being what it is, the Time Value argument isn't as strong as it used to be.

BTW: Any change to PS is an automatic no vote for me.

 

That's a fair point. I don't believe that TVM is going to be pushed (I don't KNOW it, but I don't believe that it will) as a predominant reason as to why this TA should be voted on. Pretty sure the MEC knows that the group recognizes the leverage we have and wouldn't push it based on that alone. But I would tend to agree with you that if they came out and said it that way, I would dig even deeper into the language.

I told my reps that I too wouldn't vote yes if PS were included, but again, never say never. Something like 25% DOS with a 50% reduction in PS would be pretty hard to turn down. For those that think this up cycle in the airline industry is forever, take a look at the last few weeks and what has happened to airline stocks when oil trends up. Again, not fear mongering but this up cycle ain't gonna last forever. DYODD

 

Post of the year. Needs to be stickied. Also, would love bag tags that say C2015-don't get owned