DeadHead

You seriously can't even remember what part of the country you were in?

Carl Spackler

Everyone? I don't remember a SINGLE POST where anyone said what you claim. All I remember is uniform anger at our NC for giving up ANY profit sharing to help self-fund our contractual gains. Your claim is pure BS.

See above. Your own false premise doesn't make you credible by stating current fact.

No, it's returned 19.7%. But your post is a typical example of the unionoids who want us to only focus on pay rates...while ignoring worse scope, worse work rules, worse profit sharing, etc. You need new talking points dude. These are so 2012.

Carl

ERflyer

Support your reps and the NC. That's how it works.

index

You say that we should support individuals. I think that's wrong. Supporting only individuals that advocate positions or ideas that advance our profession is the key, not supporting the reps or NC as a whole just for the sake of "unity." There's always going to be a majority/minority both on the MEC and the pilot group. What good is it to support the majority if that majority were to accept concessions in the most historic times of airline profitability?

Timbo

Support them how? You want me to buy them a cup of coffee?

When I last talked to my Rep on the phone, he had a lot of reasons as to why we can't ask for restoration, and how we should trade profit sharing for pay, and how sick leave abuse is a problem, and how medical plans for retirees shouldn't be considered, because they will all be covered by Medicare.

So what would you have me do to Support him, exactly?

I've already told him in no uncertain terms I will NOT vote for another C2012 type of deal.

"The Way It Works" is, they are supposed to REPRESENT ME, not the other way around!

ERflyer

I do remember numerous posts on the BBQ forum on this topic. I stated then our PS would increase dramatically when profits went far above $2.5B. It seemed impossible then to many but now that it's fact it doesn't seem so impossible does it? Sorry if you didn't read them on there. "Self-funding" is converted PS to a raise immune to the marketplace. At 2% cash off the bottom of PS for an additional 2% raise it's a wash. BFD.

The actual net raise was 17.7%. Remember the 2% profit sharing swap was a wash? But then there is 1% more in DC. More vacation pay. More sick leave. More of many other areas too numerous to list. Side letters increasing a day of pay ultimately to 5+15. These all have value and their benefits are real.

And of course the coups de grace - increased profit sharing which is worth an additional 10% of pay than it was before. Thus, a net gain of 30%+ more from where we were. Why selectively not count profit sharing? It's an increase in your W-2. American pilots sure look at our PS and count it. And wish they had it.

It's not BS. It's a fact that many such as yourself tend to selectively ignore. Stop being so negative and try being a bit more balanced. Your credibility might increase.

ERflyer

Sounds like you need a better rep. That's not what my NYC reps tell me. They tell me to keep the input coming and stay in touch.

Where are you based?

Edit - your rep needs a talking to. They are not there to carry the company's water.

Carl Spackler

That's not "how it works." This is how it's supposed to work: Line pilots set the agenda and elect reps that agree with that agenda. Reps give specific direction to the negotiating committee. The negotiating committee follows that direction to the letter.

When this happens, support for the reps and NC is guaranteed. When this doesn't happen there is division and dysfunctionality because it's dangerous to support known non-compliance with member and reps direction. The blind support you advocate for couldn't be a worse suggestion.

Carl

Carl Spackler

Ohhhh, the BBQ forum. The perfect place to discuss C2012 ramifications. Hopefully that forum isn't so big that you could find some of those posts you now cite?

Sorry I missed it too. Maybe you could give us a BBQ forum history lesson.

And part of the reason management refers to our contract as cost neutral.

So you arrive at your claim of 30% return by lumping pay rates, retirement and work rules. Got it. What you're missing is the costing sheets where we delineate the cost savings of our concessions. Therein lies the truth behind our cost neutral contract.

As has been thoroughly discussed, profit sharing cannot be costed out in the future, so there was no way for anyone to predict whether it would be a coup de gras, or a coup de crap.

Your facts are selective and incomplete. In other words, agenda driven spin. Why do you do that?

Carl

Karnak

Are you saying that the majority of our pilot group should not determine what is acceptable?

Really?