![]() |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1188448)
While you may be willing to turn around and kiss, I'm not.
My percentage was put down to pull the bell curve higher. Unless my percentages were thrown out for being out of the normalized range, my 99% brought up three 10% requesters to 30%. Your number would not really move a bell curve anyway. If you averaged every survey it would have a effect. It would not change a bell curve. |
Originally Posted by SailorJerry
(Post 1188452)
If they saw the =average( function not working to their liking I'm sure they changed it to the more statistically relevant =median( function.
In which case your 99% didn't stand a statistical chance. I knew we should have bribed our statistician... A risk I was willing to take. |
Originally Posted by Jack Bauer
(Post 1188294)
These will greatly affect staffing numbers (more stagnation) and would make reserve potentially very abusive.
Reserve o Reserve guarantee § Increase to 72:00 – 80:00 (variable with ALV) § Max reserve changed from ALV to ALV + 15:00 § Ability to pick up additional on-call days for increased reserve guarantee o X-days § Increase to 13/14 for bid periods with a reserve guarantee of 72:00-74:59 § Remain at 12/13 for bid periods with a reserve guarantee of 75:00-80:00 § Max of seven for bid periods with a reserve guarantee of 75:00-80:00 (delayed until 14-hour int’l short call implemented under new FARs) § Ability to pick up additional short call period for increased reserve guarantee |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1188453)
I have no idea how DALPA calculated the surveys. I was however always taught to get a correct number you throw out the extremes both high and low. Every survey was read by a individual. The written comments were in my mind key to the surveys. Do you think yours got more or less credibility from whoever read it?
My ritten coments used spell chek and corect puctuation. Eye thunk theyz wel ritten soze wy wood mey numberz knot cary tha saem wate? |
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 1188339)
As bad as that sounds, I hope that's where that came from.
|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1184825)
I am with gloopy on this. 5 weeks of vacation would allow me to take 5 months off! I would love to work only 7 months a year. Gloopy for vacation chairman!
|
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1188018)
Reports are Section 1 is done. Pay to go. TA to the Reps tomorrow or the next day if pay negotiations are successful.
|
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1188471)
So how many additional, permanent, DC-9-10 replacement jets are we allowing? 50? 100? I know our reps won't tell us because they probably don't even know themselves, but the ASA, Comair, Mesaba and Compass MEC's probably know.
|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1188052)
The number in the contract surveys was below 30 percent so I doubt you will see the company move above where we opened.
Oh yeah, it'll have total section 1 secutity other than a 300+ fleet of 76(+?) seaters. Right. So a COLA and a scope sale, with a bit more on the front end. So much for engaging constructively. |
Originally Posted by Pro Fessional
(Post 1188131)
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? But all things aren't equal. We know for a fact that there are numerous concessionary elements in the upcoming TA simply by what the NNP said. At the very least several hundred pilot positions eliminated over time, even assuming we don't hand more capacity to AS, DCI and the LCC's just to buff quarterly revenue in the short term (although odds are we will). Then there is the upcoming scope sale of additional DC-9-10 replacement jets at the labor busting DCI whipsaw machine. Does anyone really think the concessionary work rules we've seen will be exceeded by secret, hidden work rule gains they just didn't tell us about when they chose to tell us about the bad ones? Who negotiates like that? Throw in the possible lack of an early opener/acceletated arbitration and a 3 year deal plus RLA stalling is more than enough to erase 29% with compounding inflation, yet the scope and work rule/staffing concessions are permanent. But even if there is another early opener, we're not going to get the scope we just sold back, and likely not the work rules/staffing either. I'd rather see a strongly worded statement about how we couldn't even come close to an agreement with the company due to the serious long term concessionary mentality they had, we're done outsourcing more large RJ's and in fact must go the other way with that, and we will not fund the company's upcoming retirements with staffing concessions. Hopefully the LEC's will chock block a POS like this if thats what it ends up being. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:05 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands