I've still never flown a GS so I don't have any idea how much money he could have made doing that. I was speaking to just the increases in hourly wages, at 82 hours a month average, no overtime.

We are STILL 18% below our 2004 pay rates, and this TA won't get us back to those rates until 2018! Now subtract 14 years of inflation from those rates and see where you are!

OH, and let's not forget, we still don't have the same value in our retirement plans that we had in 2004.

 

My math is that in 2006 I made a little less than $160K or at least the W-2 that I am looking at now says so. Last year more than $250K, still looking straight at the W-2. That's 90,000. TA increases my pay rate another $50/hour, that's $50K. There's my math.

 

Okay, yes, I work for money. What do you get paid in, bananas? I admit that being a capt. I don't get any OE trips so that doesn't affect me, but it doesn't seem too far a reach to expect someone to actually come to work to get paid when they are making 150 to 200k per year. The rest of the agreement is positive. Sick leave, I call in sick once every three or four years so who gives a crap. If you are sick 200 hours a year you probably need to get a doctors note or go to a hospital or something.

 

Or the 2004 D&S plan.

 

And some of us weigh the good against the bad and every other time have come down on the side of good, if ever so slightly. This time, IMO (and it seems like a lot of others like me) the bad far outweighs the good. As a matter of fact, the thing I see that classifies as good is the pay and that isn't even that good!

Denny

 

As soon as we bought a share of bankrupt Aeromexico, they went on a 787 buying spree.

 

This will be a very damaging TA regardless of how we vote on it. It we pass it we eat massive concessions all around, including unprecidented foreign alter ego airlines and a lower and further reduceable AF/KLM JV. If we vote against it it will take a strong effort to overcome the baseline it created.

So I propose we gift the company 100 million dollars.

That's right, and I'm not kidding.

If the net value of this TA is supposedly 1.1B over 3 years, and assuming it was properly comprehensively costed out (I don't think it was, but the company and the NC will absolutely stand by that it was) then when we vote it down let's offer 1.0B over 3 years to our current contract and put it in payrates alone. Nothing else. Nothing. Else.

The company couldn't possibly have a problem with that, could they? If the true net cost was 1.1B extra and we're offering them a free 100M (to return to the shareholders! Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!) then they would be a fiduciary obligation for them to accept that.

Assuming this TA was properly costed out all around that is. Which further assumes they would *never* do any of the worst case things that they *could* do IAW this TA, like massive sick harassment on a scale never before seen, foreign alter egos, 75/76's against a new A380 order for our "partners" AF/KLM, etc.

If the true cost of the pros and cons cost 1.1B extra, from our point of view and theirs, give them one hundred million dollars, or donate it to the charity of their choice, and put the 1.0B into pay rates alone and stick with current book.

What possibe problem could they have with that?

 

In my category, this TA hamstrings my ability to make more pay by flying overtime. My math says this TA will cut my earnings by $100k.

But that isn't the worst of it. This TA will cut transatlantic flying...

AND allow 1 guy, who I have learned to distrust due to his actions, the MEC chairman, to allow a foreign carrier to fly my Pacific flying too...and probably be counted as Delta metal, in delta paint...My job eventually is flown by a Chinese guy because my union CAN DO THAT...under this TA.

And there's more!

He can let Emirates, Etihad, Qatari, etc fly my trips in delta paint too.

 

As I understand it it is aircraft hours.

 

If you read the list of how the individual MEC members voted for this, there were at least 4 guys who said, "I don't like it but I'll let the pilots decide". If just 2 of those 4 had voted no instead of yes, this thing would have failed, 10-9 against.

That right there tells me all I need to know. They didn't like it, and they want YOU to turn it down.

I am not afraid of the NMB and I am not going to sell out all these concessions for a piddly 8% raise. I voted yes to 2012, only because my Capt. Rep told me we would NEVER see those two 3% raises, but we did, and now we get to see two more 3% raises, with very little improvement to our retirement funding! The MEC set a low bar in 2012, and now a 3% raise will be the new normal.

Not going to fall for that again.