![]() |
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 1175807)
Okay, so which is it? As far as profit sharing goes, did we have a loss of $39million or a profit of $124 million?
Denny |
So if we hire next year when can a '10 person get back out to the West coast where he/she belongs? (So Cal person living in ATL commuting to NY?? Ouch)
|
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 1175775)
But I don't necessarily think the "Con" portion of a Pro and Con paper is a sell job against. A lot of Pros with few Cons can be a very good TA. Hopefully this is what we will have. :)
Scoop We went through the same demands at NWA in '98. The TA roadshows then were about selling the TA. The "negative" comments amounted to something like "Well, we would've liked a bigger payraise, but we could'nt get it." Any negatives regarding the TA will only come from people other than ALPA. Hopefully they, and any explanations from ALPA, will wind up on this forum. |
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 1175787)
Who am I to argue against a good point? Except I might add that two wrongs...
Wonder what you said, that Johnso had to edit? Scoop |
The Maddog don't give a...
The 717 is a Maddog isn't it?...outch! Cheers George |
Originally Posted by georgetg
(Post 1175854)
The Maddog don't give a...
The 717 is a Maddog isn't it?...outch! Cheers George |
Originally Posted by cni187
(Post 1175834)
So if we hire next year when can a '10 person get back out to the West coast where he/she belongs? (So Cal person living in ATL commuting to NY?? Ouch)
|
Originally Posted by JobHopper
(Post 1175843)
We went through the same demands at NWA in '98. The TA roadshows then were about selling the TA. The "negative" comments amounted to something like "Well, we would've liked a bigger payraise, but we could'nt get it".
Inevitably the answer is still a positive...."I always work hard..I'm competitive" or something to that effect. |
Originally Posted by JobHopper
(Post 1175843)
I hate to be a Debbie Downer on this topic, but this will absolutely not happen. When we finally do get a TA, the NC will have spent months, countless hours and much blood, sweat and tears producing a contract acceptable to the company and worthy of presentation to the pilots. The last thing they will do is tell you what's wrong with it.
We went through the same demands at NWA in '98. The TA roadshows then were about selling the TA. The "negative" comments amounted to something like "Well, we would've liked a bigger payraise, but we could'nt get it." Any negatives regarding the TA will only come from people other than ALPA. Hopefully they, and any explanations from ALPA, will wind up on this forum. That's what I said earlier about the sell job. I think they're too invested in it. It's like asking a proud father that just cut the cord to give an opposite viepoint, and tell them the kid's ugly. I understand the logic in wanting data in your own due diligence, but it would be some sort of shyzo leap for them to do one thing (produce an agreement they think is fair), and the opposite of that thing (argue it isn't fair). They'll do something like capncrunch suggested, instead. I think the best we can acheive is to at least get them to leave us alone, as we make our own, private deliberations. As I said earlier, it comes to down to not losing track of your own criteria, your own benchmark, and judging the product. In theory, it would be nice to have neutrals write credible point/counterpoints. In reality... if you're starved for debate at that point, there's always APC. |
Originally Posted by georgetg
(Post 1175712)
Google the WSJ headline -> read for free
or have your buddies do the work: WSJ via Google: Delta Shows Strong Revenue Growth Cheers George |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:27 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands