|
Originally Posted by RonRicco
(Post 1887081)
As C2015 continues to evolve, it is interesting to think about the comparison to 2012. Certainly we are in a much better environment and expectations are high. The MEC by their own admission, are in a better place than 2012 with regards to the info being provided to them from the negotiators and their ability to redirect. This may be somewhat of a double edged sword when it comes to a TA.. Why?
In 2012, the MEC (except for a few insiders) were kept mostly in the dark until 4833 (among other things) were sprung on them at the MEC meeting. Yes, there had been rumors and some members had actually reached out to the powers that be in attempt to at least provide a general overview of the situation (to the MEC) as it related to section 3 so the MEC could at least "own" the product. This did not happen. Now, fast forward to 2015. The MEC seems to be in the loop and when and if a TA comes back, the reasoning for voting "yes" on a lesser product is much different because their involvement along the way compared to 2012. Certainly a few of the former regulars who are now involved and voted "no" to 2012, will have to "own" their "yes" vote and cant suggest that it was somehow outside their direction as reasoning. (Unless of course they get something sprung on them again) I have no idea on the validity of the rumors that propagate here and on the other forum, but at this point I have to admit I am deeply concerned where this path may be leading. There is always compromise in any negotiation and there is always an equal and opposite reaction on contractual changes. Fixing something for one pilot often upsets another, so just because I may be unhappy about a "fix" doesn't mean that you won't be happy..... But, the good is going to have to STRONGLY outweigh the things I don't like in this TA (besides cash)... My confidence level ain't high right now.. I guess time will tell. |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1886798)
Try again ace. While we line pukes will never see the survey results, our reps and Donutelli have. Both our reps and Donutelli have publicly stated that the pilot survey was clear in that they said do NOT touch profit sharing.
The following paragraph is my opinion only, not a declaration of fact: The "publicly stating" could be myriad of things, but the one I would employ in that position is to make a contractual item appear more valuable than it actually is and increasing it's perceived value at the negotiating table. If it's an item that the pilot group seems to not care about then it's an easier target. If the negotiators present it to the company as one of the holy grail items then it becomes much more difficult and/or expensive to amend. You might do differently in that position. No more opinion, now to basic economics: Given a static supply of a product, as demand rises, prices will increase.
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1886798)
Interesting that you're still here working as hard as you can to make the case for giving away profit sharing.
You're not only enthused about it, you're working as hard as you can to make the case for it. It's almost all you've talked about in your 10 posts since you joined 3 days ago. Interesting how we've gone from Donutelli's "World's Greatest Contract" to this operative describing a "suitable" contract. What a surprise. Carl |
Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
(Post 1886984)
The new hire freeze was not the only thing we gave up to get rid of the recovery flying. When they merged the 767 domestic into the ER category, a pilot wasn't considered done with training until all TOE's were done. Now a pilot can fly domestically while waiting to finish his/her TOE's. That kept pilots from sitting at home getting paid to do nothing. That was a bigger concession than the freeze, but well worth it to get rid of recovery obligations for OE.
In addition to that, we were told that many pilots wanted to fly domestically so they could get more time instead of languishing at min guarantee. While its hard to believe someone would want to work 85ish hours to make 85ish hours versus exactly zero hours to make 75ish hours is mind blowing…yet sadly probably true to some degree. The new hire concession effects many times more pilots to a much greater degree than the sit at home waiting for TOE pilots. Not to mention, the company isn't taking advantage of it nearly as much as they can, as there are still plenty of ER pilots not flying anything until finished with TOE. Both those concessions sold jobs to the company in order to gain jobs with the OE trip drop. Now we are looking to sell those jobs as well, for what it seems like are a small buff to payrates. |
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 1887087)
Everybody should read that old thread. His views on the need to give up mainline scope are perhaps more frightening than anything else. Nothing personal, purely business. We do NOT want someone with those views running our MEC or the negotiations. |
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 1887131)
Thanks for finding that.
Everybody should read that old thread. His views on the need to give up mainline scope are perhaps more frightening than anything else. Nothing personal, purely business. We do NOT want that guy running our MEC or the negotiations. |
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 1887087)
An enlightening read. And certainly a data point for folks who think saying "no" only leads to less. Clearly his analysis was wrong then. |
Originally Posted by Hank Kingsley
(Post 1887066)
Bidding with a LCA, really, the entire subject affects what percentage of the whole pilot group. It's a red herring. Restore our pre BK contract. Contact your reps now.
So your a bottom line holder and never bid with LCAs so why care? Well if they pull the equivalent of 20 to 50 FOs worth of trips, WELCOME TO RESERVE! |
Originally Posted by MoonShot
(Post 1887042)
Withholding trips from being awarded to FO's cannot be allowed to pass under any circumstance.
Think about it, you could be #1 in your category and not get any trip you bid. It'd be like playing poker with 45 cards in the deck and they don't tell you which 7 are missing. |
keep it simple as of now the company really has no need for concessions. However in the future, as retirement stoke up, Double pay is going to be an issue.
What affects the chances of green slips happening? LCP bidding, calling in sick, trips touching, vacation, no recovery obligation, etc. What's the company asking for? all the above and possibly any means to cut down training to cut down staffing via pay banding and seat locks. Which in turn cuts down double pay, etc., in the future. Although these concessions are not needed now, they will be in the future. So the company is thinking two steps ahead. Pilots, well you know...thinking in the here and now. To beat a concessionary TA, don't focus on the MEC, etc. Just focus on the TA. Prove that keeping the current PS and using the retirements will help us. Get some statistics to show and make the case. Only reason harwood looks smart is because nobody showed up with any comparative statistics from a different view point. Einstein a genius, yup, .....harwood...definately not...just a man with statistics to support one point of view. Statistics only matter in which the context they are applied. Time value of money does not take a genius to prove. Prove the relevance of time value of money as compare to how many green slips that can happen due to a pilot shortage and an fantastic PS pay check. It is hard to beat green slip with a raise. Our negotiating hammers are PS and future retirements. Why give them up at all until one of them erodes? Sometimes a contract that we have can be better than the one we will get. |
Originally Posted by pilotstats
(Post 1887090)
Try again deuce. This line puke is not enthused about PS changes, not in the slightest until I see the increase in contractual value that all the pilots(but even more so in the roughly 30-80% system seniority) have paid for in multiples over the last decade via the structure of the concessionary agreements, prolonged stagnation, repeated furloughs, and frozen miniscule A-plans(or terminated), but I digress. Back on topic: "Publicly stating" and quantification of survey results in a confidential setting are very different things.
The following paragraph is my opinion only, not a declaration of fact: The "publicly stating" could be myriad of things, but the one I would employ in that position is to make a contractual item appear more valuable than it actually is and increasing it's perceived value at the negotiating table. If it's an item that the pilot group seems to not care about then it's an easier target. If the negotiators present it to the company as one of the holy grail items then it becomes much more difficult and/or expensive to amend. You might do differently in that position. No more opinion, now to basic economics: Given a static supply of a product, as demand rises, prices will increase. You are very sorely mistaken here. I do not work hard to make a case for anything. You have no context upon which to make a statement like that. You've attempted to reframe a discussion with me when it did not suit your liking. I hope that it is not common behavior that if a poster(I or any other) does not fall in line with a rationale in toto that one would change the premise of the discussion with an inaccurate framing of the past. That would be manipulative and disingenuous, and I would like to believe you are honest and genuine, but sometimes that energy just gets in the way of staying on topic. I grant you are correct that I am new to this forum so maybe don't know all the history here, but if it is your modus operandi to alter and distort the past deliberately, do not expect me to cooperate with such malfeasance. I sincerely hope this is not the case. Carl |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:00 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands