![]() |
Originally Posted by TED74
(Post 1893844)
Can someone tell me what 15/15/6/6 means?
Alaska scope carveout eliminated, outright purchase of Virgin and a strong Chinese carrier, one list. Deal. Thinking long term. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
[QUOTE=TED74;1893850]
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 1893766)
OK. I will admit it. I can be bought. (except maybe on scope) For 50%, I'd probably verify ALL my sick leave and send in a weekly stool sample for monitoring. Less than that or significant concessions and I might just do the stool sample. |
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1893416)
Can anyone confirm that Donatelli sent one of his aides to monitor the Council 1 meeting today?
|
What does a raised bars look like?
Which elevation of the bar?
2004 rates + keep profit sharing. Or AA + 5% + keep profit sharing. Or 36% increase in rates |
Here's how I read the C44 update:
"On time. Pass the Beer Nuts." |
Originally Posted by 300SMK
(Post 1893854)
Thank God home prices and commodities haven't gone up 250% since then.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by james014
(Post 1893820)
I'm new to looking at this contract stuff for you guys. Can you tell me what 9966 means? I've seen it a few times now.
|
Originally Posted by Hawaii50
(Post 1893706)
Why bother to collect it at all then? It's really the only reference point they have on what the group wants/expects. There will always be the squeaky wheels but the mainstream submits their survey and expects that to speak for them with the collective result being the goal the negotiations work toward.
I'm not going to go all in on cost neutral here, but in c12, do you think people asked to trade profit sharing? Do you, in your heart of hearts, believe the 717s weren't coming? Do you believe CDOs were at the "direction of the pilots?" The rank and file, IMO, are seen as rabble to too many at the higher levels of D/ALPA. Too easy to control using fear and doubt. My opinion is that the survey is summarily disregarded by many after openers are exchanged...instead of being used as a touch stone during negotiations. Dissenters to this approach and dissenters to the company want list are attacked and shouted down then, later drummed out. I haven't flown with anyone who thinks concessions in any form are acceptable. Most of the guys I fly with believe firmly that the company should max our 401ks every year. My microcosm may or may not be reflective of the wants of a majority of pilots. Short story long, trust but verify hasn't worked, in my view, for a long time. |
Not a rumor, but just spitballin'.
We've heard the want to get rid of payback days and pay reserve greens double. They want pilot productivity. I'm thinking that the company may float a proposal like nwa had with 1.5 pay over 80. I'm thinking, due to far 117, we should have double pay over 80 and keep GS's as they are too. Anyone? |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1894026)
Not a rumor, but just spitballin'.
We've heard the want to get rid of payback days and pay reserve greens double. They want pilot productivity. I'm thinking that the company may float a proposal like nwa had with 1.5 pay over 80. I'm thinking, due to far 117, we should have double pay over 80 and keep GS's as they are too. Anyone? I personally prefer our current system. Not sure that I would like the unintended consequences of 13,000 + Pilots motivated to fly well over 80 hours each month. If even 5000 pilots flew to 90 hours a month that would approximate 1000 less pilots needed using a current baseline of 75 hours a month. I bet management would love it. 90-75=15. 15x5000=75,000. 75,000/75hrs = 1000 less DAL Pilots. :eek: Scoop |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:59 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands