Thanks for the civil dialog. The best thing for any of us when our career is over is to have enough jack in the bank to be comfortable when we retire. By sticking to the old bigger faster heavier method of paying us, we ignore the time/value of money fact. When we are stagnant, like AMR, you get 20 year M88 FOs.. why should they be hammered because management chose to have a billion M88s and only a few 777s? They.... we... have been here, and should be compensated accordingly. ALPA doesn't buy the fleet. We set the rate to fly it... well.. sort of. At a minimum the retardation of a 12 year pay scale has to go.. where in the hell did that come from anyway? 12 years? Why? Maybe the forum genius can explain that one to me. QOL for junior guys in each category always has, and probably always will continue to suck, that's the alpa way, but I still believe that there is a better way that would offer more opportunities to the junior guys other than to sacrifice pay for QOL or vice versa.

 

Doesn't have to be a crossing. They could go to ROR!

I guess you could stay if you wanted to and wait for that DH!

 

T- It is the seniority based way, it is not union dependent.

 

That is the funniest post I have ever read!

 

Someone has to get our citizens out. In reality from everything I have been told, the radiation levels around NRT are about 1/20th of an standard X-ray, 1/20 of what we get at 350 on a crossing, and lower in NRT than we get at 350. FWIW, those numbers have been independently verified. Of course that is today, and not if the situation gets worse.

 

What are you talking about?

 

Sure.. it's worth exploring if it puts more money in everybody's pocket and gives them a shot at a better QOL.

 

Sorry quote did not take.

I was referring to juniority sucking. It is seniority dependent and has nothing to do with the name of the union.

 

You're guessing wrong, again, and I'm tired of your attacks on the messenger when there is an idea presented that doesn't fit your plan. I have a different viewpoint on LBP than you, but that's not what this is about.

This is about you presenting the opinion that a hypothetical B744 closure would be an argument for a LBP system. It took about a half an hour of thinking it through to realize you've actually uncovered a major flaw in the LBP argument. Then after a strange sort of "debate" where you've tried the virtual equivalent of yelling, pouting, walking out, and walking back in, but never once rationally discussed any theory that isn't your own.

Having had a chance to think it over a couple of hours, it's becoming very apparent that there is a significant problem in LBP, in that it sets up an airline to downsize conveniently. If there is an flaw in my logic, by all means, explain it. I've laid out what I think is a pretty rational case WRT displacements and furloughs. You haven't addressed it. You asked a question, I answered it, and now you're retrenching instead in this weak "inner-circle" b.s.

Finally, spare me the sanctimonious crap about being open-minded. I've tried to at least entertain the idea you presented, and I've tried to present a rationale for my thinking, two things you can't be bothered with. Like you, I am only trying to better our situation. I seem to remember bringing up the concept of a NSL, an idea which you poo-poohed out of hand, without presenting much of a rationale. I may not win any awards for open-mindedness, but I don't think you should create a shrine for your ward just yet.

I surely made a mistake when I congratulated you for finding a way to make the company scaleable and shrinkeable, so I apologize for it. Maybe that's what got your panties all tangled up, and fried the hemisphere that handles rational thought. I know you're not trying to make things worse.

In closing: my logic is my own. It isn't tied to any agenda, or any group. If you have any rational thoughts that refute mine, be my guest.

 

Just wanted to bump this post I put up last summer. It seems pertinent in the current pay system discussions.