That's what I think will happen too.........

Take a typical 12 year 7ERB as an example and review 2016 as if we never got a TA all year vs if TA 2015 passes.

Use $4.5B PTIX for 2014 and say that's what we make in 2016. Say wages for all PS eligible employees is $4B.

In the end, said FO would make $24K more in flight pay, lose $5.6K in PS, make $2.7K more in 401K, come out $21.2K ahead for entire year of 2016 with TA2015 vs no TA.

For 7B PTIX, comes out $16.5K.

Now had TA2015 been same pay rates and PS untouched, he'd come out $19K ahead of where TA2015 puts them.

C2K vote was 70% yes. Just food for thought.

What a woefully inadequate TA given the Billions and Billions of record profits, and the 5 BILLION in stock buybacks announced.

- Inadequate pay raises that are, once again, partially funded by profit-sharing reductions. Those "payraises" alone are a No vote. And didn't donatelli say he heard us "loud and clear" that we didn't want PS touched?

- Flying that we already own, being paid for with yet another concession of additional 76-seat aircraft.

- Only 1% increase in DC, and it doesn't happen until 2017.

- Only a 15 minute increase in vacation pay, and it is no credit.

- $.05 increase in per diem?? Why did they even bother.......

- First Officers who will not be able to bid for 75% of LCA flying, potentially denying them certain holidays/weekends/etc off. Not to mention the staffing hit associated with that.

- The effects of the JV language. Did they really exclude VA? Not to mention the other items.



If this is the NC and donatelli's idea of a "historic" contract given our extreme profitability, I would -shudder- to see what their version of a concessionary contract is.......

Absolute no vote. It is not even close for me.


.

EASK to block hours is a concessions I didn't think possible even in bankruptcy.

We're already way ahead in block hours because of EASK. This would allow a massive job shift to AF/KLM as we put smaller planes up against their bigger planes. Theoretically their A380 would count even with our 757, etc. We couldn't have possibly agreed to this.

Was this a misprint? Because if not its a far bigger worst case concession than I ever thought possible. What am I missing on this? We couldn't have possibly agreed to this.

What does the VA carve out mean? I assumed it meant we still use ESK for that JV.

And the 50 additional E190/195 aircraft are supposedly tied to fifty less 50 seaters with 25 more 76 seaters. So DCI shrinks by 5% airframes and 2% seats, and we gain 50 "hundred seaters" which is a lot more than the lost 2% lift coming out of DCI.

So marketing clearly has a plan for that flying regardless. They need it, and with our without this TA, they will still need it. Why would we agree to this? Even if none of it is replacement lift for aging 320's/88's/757's/etc (which at least some of it probably is...is the 1.8 BHR enough to prevent that?) they will still need that lift. They are not going to leave customers stranded or abandon clearly profitable market share if we don't agree to this. They will buy the lift they need, period. If they want 100 seaters they will get 100 seaters. We can't buy them for them.

I read all the highlights. I still couldn't get past the concessions in section 1. Not even for 8/0/3/3 (adjusted for huge PS tier reduction, which means even lower rates when we back out the costs of the other layered concessions).

So no. Its an easy no too.

Like really easy.

POS15. Send it back.

No, what I'm saying is.......last week there must have been a vote to tell the NC to TA with the company and we will never know how that vote went.

It will be interesting to see if the reps repeat that vote here or show MEC unity.

Just playing election analysis, I really should be on one of the networks on election nights cuz I'ze really smart:D

Ferd

I've have posted just a handful of times as I mostly just lurk; however, I will vote no based on JV, Scope, and Sick Leave alone.
Full disclosure requires me to tell you I have voted yes on all past contracts back to 2000. That is how disappointed I am and ****ed. So much so, looking at in house representation is now an option I never would have considered before.
Fail!

He left early. You know, because pilots take the time off to go to an important meeting and then just leave early.

So in terms of pay rates:

Worst case scenario of no profits, AA + 3.5%

Status quo, AA + 14.8%

Best case, AA + 14.8% + ?%

Very nice! Satisfies the NMB for sure. Non-variable compounded rate of 21.5%.

I agree. That is complete BS. I will be perfectly honest. I am not exactly losing sleep at the prospect of some change to super-senior FOs getting paid to stay home for a month as if there is a constitutional amendment granting them that.

I get the company's point, especially in some super-short categories like NYC 73NB (which is the company's fault, by the way) where you see an F/O getting GS#7 after all his trips are bought due to LCA bidding.

However I was anticipating some sort of recovery obligation with iron-clad protections (only prior to GS, not WS or reserves, only within the original footprint, if the original had no redeyes, then the replacement could not either, etc).

But to just withhold trips from bidding to begin with? BS. I flew the 767 for 13+years and never once selected the "bid with LCA" option. I did, however frequently end up flying with LCAs on very nice trips. Would that option be taken away entirely?

Still need to get some perspective on a lots of details.