Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 1901306)

Ok, here is a quick list why this turd should be rejected. Feel free to ad to it:

1. Credit Suisse article showing its actually putting money in the company's pocket every year

2. Loss of Profit Sharing/buying our own raise. What's the company's predicted profit for the next three years? Also tweaking how PS is calculated will lower the amount

3. 3.b.4 will surely be triggered again and we will probably get around a 3% raise (a guess on my part)

4. 75% of LCA trips pulled out affects every FO in that category not just 180

5. More large RJ to DCI

6. JV metric changed to block hours from EASK's and lowered.

7. Only 1% to DC plan and that not until 2017

8. 5 to 10 cents more on per diem, puhleeze

9. Sick leave debacle. Third party verification? Not good if true

10. Vacation and training only adding 15 minutes a day?

11. New hire training freeze now 24 months? Throw the new hire under the bus

These off the top of my head......

Denny

Originally Posted by Doug Madsen (Post 1901366)

Really? Which part of this article said that:

Credit Suisse noted that the fixed increase of 15% by the amendable date is slightly more than it expected, but the profit sharing offset is more significant at this point. With the 20% profit sharing threshold moving to $6 billion for all employees, the firm expects approximately $500 million of potential savings, compared to $2.5 billion of threshold. The firm believes that this will be large enough saving to offset the fixed increase of 15% for pilots, giving extra cost of approximately $400 million.



So, ALPA puts out a list of approximately 60 improvements, and your counter is 11 "cons" of which 2 aren't even true and 3 are actually improvements

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1901357)

Yes, the existing contract uses EASK's and the new one uses block hours.

Does it convert to block hours though? Or does it just allow 50/50 block hours? Because that's how it was written, which would mean a significant and immediate loss of widebody jobs that we'd never get back.

Even if it "converted" to block hours, that still sets the stage for a significant permanent majority of AF/KLM EASK's from now on. If it guts our current block hour premium and allows an immediate 50/50 split (really a 49/51 split…) then we're really getting hosed. Who would EVER agree to this and why?

Originally Posted by Doug Madsen (Post 1901366)

Really? Which part of this article said that:

Credit Suisse noted that the fixed increase of 15% by the amendable date is slightly more than it expected, but the profit sharing offset is more significant at this point. With the 20% profit sharing threshold moving to $6 billion for all employees, the firm expects approximately $500 million of potential savings, compared to $2.5 billion of threshold. The firm believes that this will be large enough saving to offset the fixed increase of 15% for pilots, giving extra cost of approximately $400 million.




So, ALPA puts out a list of approximately 60 improvements, and your counter is 11 "cons" of which 2 aren't even true and 3 are actually improvements

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1901386)

The NC notepad is out, one line that caught my attention:



OR another way to say it as

Originally Posted by Doug Madsen (Post 1901366)

Really? Which part of this article said that:

Credit Suisse noted that the fixed increase of 15% by the amendable date is slightly more than it expected, but the profit sharing offset is more significant at this point. With the 20% profit sharing threshold moving to $6 billion for all employees, the firm expects approximately $500 million of potential savings, compared to $2.5 billion of threshold. The firm believes that this will be large enough saving to offset the fixed increase of 15% for pilots, giving extra cost of approximately $400 million.



So, ALPA puts out a list of approximately 60 improvements, and your counter is 11 "cons" of which 2 aren't even true and 3 are actually improvements

Originally Posted by EdGrimley (Post 1901333)

12. Ab Initio. Very little detail so far but this, along with more large RJ's, breaths new life into outsourcing at the "regional" level.

It helps management produce more pilots in a short period of time and has been shown to produce pilots that are not safe. They lack experience that traditional vetting provides. It's bad for the profession in multiple ways.

Delta and other regional are throwing $80K additional money over 3 or 4 year to regional guys willing to stick around just so they can keep the RJ experiment/ whipsaw alive. I imagine they will lobby (with ALPA's help) to reduce required flight time and pay pilot candidates to go through pilot puppy academies to fill seats under contract. Why ALPA would join in this affair is anybodies guess. Oh yeah, Richard asked. Kill it now before it grows.

One of the side effects of pilots trained this way...



"The pilot found visual approaches difficult."