OK, Check. Those are facts. Why don't you pick a different time frame and provide your results. I'll wait.

 

I heard 10% date of approval and 12% 01 Jan 2013. 22% to start and 5% Jan 2014. 3 year deal. That's all I heard on hourly rates.

 

Yea right........

 

I'm not disputing your facts. I'm just drawing a different conclusion.
I examined the statistics you provided and I concluded the following:

We've received regular raises and our pay still sucks.

 

I will judge the whole thing when complete, but so far this is no fn way.

 

I completely agree! So, what's your suggestion? So far, we have very distinct approaches, yielding very distinct results.

 

+ 1..........

 

Doubling that, with the current concessions outlined in the NN and God knows what kind of scope sellout ALPA hands us, would still be a NO.

So much for "fleeting opportunities," Richard.

The only question now is whether the LEC reps have the stones to vote this mess down. That will determine how soon the DPA vote comes up.

 

The funny thing about % is it really doesn't matter. It has to be viewed in the context of the entire CBA or it is meaningless. Let's say we take a 10% cut to our hourly rates, but now we are paid that rate for TAFB. Did we come out ahead?

I'm not advocating signing off on less than we feel we're worth, but simple % claims are useless without the fine print. Min Day, Pay for VTS, DC Contribution . . . . . All can vastly alter your takehome at the end of the day despite what % we may/may not get. The hourly rate is just a multiplier. It's been said over and over, but the devil is in the details.

Kinda like the NNP, leaked hourly rates (not saying Sailing floated a trial balloon) are meaningless without the accompanying language.

 

Well, that's a total of about 30% (actually 29.36%) compounded one year and seven months from now.

... Or we could walk away and still be in Section 6 negotiations then with no end in sight. The absurdity of saying "anything less than 30% is a NO vote" without any regard for the rest of the TA and considering the time value of money amazes me. To those of you making statements like that - have you considered how big of a raise it will take three or four years from now at the conclusion of prolonged Section 6 negotiations to make up for 3 or 4 years of no raises in the meantime?

Me? I will evaluate any TA in its whole. I have not developed any "lines in the sand." I would love to get back to C2K rates, especially adjusted for inflation, but I will be pragmatic when I evaluate any TA. We should all do the same.