Originally Posted by SharpestTool (Post 1855570)

Sparkler wants you to believe that it doesn't matter because your max pay rate increase will be unaffected by whether the company is on the hook for potential PS.

Originally Posted by SharpestTool (Post 1855570)

IOW, there is no cost associated with potential PS. That is pure fantasy.

Originally Posted by SharpestTool (Post 1855570)

Contrary to spackler's belief, the company can make a projection of probable value, certainly within a range of probable values. They do such things all the time, with fuel hedging for example. The point is they can project a number greater than zero if they see continued profitability. If they see a cliff coming (extreme case) they can elect to reject moves to monetize, knowing that they will likely not have to pay any PS.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1855683)

Projections and probabilities aren't acceptable in a Section 6 costing sheet. Neither side wants to be tied to or offer projections and probabilities as an actual cost. There's no upside to doing that since the NMB would reject it out of hand on behalf of the first side to object to it.

So, can the company make projections? Absolutely. Does that matter in any way during Section 6? Absolutely not.

Carl

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1855755)

You seem to now place some importance in the NMB.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1855755)

In the past you seemed to beleive that the NMB and their statements were irrelevant. Why the change?

Originally Posted by Bananie (Post 1855650)

I guess. It just seems like the company could make the opposite argument that if profit sharing had no value our refusal to give it up would not harm the pilots unduly. I think we should come up with some other argument

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1855681)

Contract time comes, and it's like they send up the bat signal that attracts the biggest union political blowhards out there.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1855780)

I've always placed high importance on the NMB. All of your Section 6 strategies have to include the NMB as being the final arbiter.



Not at all. What I objected to is when you and Slowplay and alfaromeo described the NMB as an insurmountable hurdle. You repeatedly said the NMB's PowerPoint presentation showed them telling us they'll park us indefinitely if we didn't play nice, etc. When I asked you guys to show me exactly what slide(s) of the NMB PowerPoint backed up your claim, you said the NMB stated it in closed session. When I asked my reps if that was ever said in closed session, my reps said the NMB never said or inferred anything like a threat of being parked or anything threatening at all

When members of my own union used a statement from the NMB (that never happened) as a tool to get members to believe there was no hope in fighting management for an industry leading contract, I objected to that. I still object to that. Although in fairness, I haven't heard you guys do this yet in this Section 6.

Carl

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1855884)

Carl, I posted a link to both the NMB timeline and a link from the NMB website about their definition of reasonableness. They most certainly did state to the MEC that it would be a 3 years at least before they could get truly involved in contract 2012. That would be around when?

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1855903)

They said no such thing sailingfun.

Carl