Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1903874)

To all, I could keep jabbing with PD and Carl if you like, but since I think facts put out are healthier for a real debate; I'm going to try and stick with those.

FTB, I would demand a costing of this change from the NC at the road shows. If its a concession, we should know what it cost.

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1903872)

I've looked for that before and haven't found it. Let us know if you locate them.

Originally Posted by Bananie (Post 1903812)

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.

Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 1903793)

WOW!:mad:

His qualifications to comment on the subject are absolutely impeccable!

Denny

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1903734)

What you have posted here is inaccurate.

You are combining two different things. There is a verification threshold. Verification is done by your M.D.,D.O.,D.D.S., D.C.,D.M.D., or D.P.M., A.P.R.N., P.A. - C, or PhD and is credentialed as a licensed clinical psychologist. Verification is required if you use more than 15 days of sick in a rolling 365 days.

There is a medical release threshold of 24 sick days in a rolling 365 or 52 days in a 3 year period. You must first be provided the opportunity to use your provider to satisfy the medical basis for your sick leave; a medical release must be limited to the specific instance in which a pilot claimed sick leave AND the day(s) on which the pilot claimed sick leave and the consecutive day(s) off immediately preceding and succeeding the day(s) on which a pilot claimed sick leave.

These provisions take the CPO out of the verification loop. The only non-medical professional that can be involved in the process is the SVP Flight Operations, and he can only be involved if the medical verification and medical release do not provide sufficient information for them to determine why you used sick leave.

You can read the language in the TA Section 14. The 15 day, 24 day, and 52 day triggers are clearly concessionary. The rest is not, taking non-medical people out of the process, and should enhance our privacy.

Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 1903833)

Wow. Now we are getting down to the nitty gritty. Money is the only thing you look at to heck with the rest... How can you say the rest of the contract is a positive with a straight face!?! :eek:

I certainly hope the other yes voters have a bigger picture than you.

Denny

Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez (Post 1903892)

How does that protect us? They can still do that.

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1903824)

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?

Originally Posted by Ferd149 (Post 1903967)

I'm assuming it's the same as what's on FB (I'm not on chit chat.....this place is bad enough:D)

Once again, I was a disappointed NO till i saw the medical stuff, now I'm a angry NO.

Ferd

Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 1903982)

It's what, I think it was The Manager, posted on here a few pages ago. As anyone can see the writers quals are impeccable.

Agreed.

Denny

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1903980)

1 billion applied only as a raise would generate a 13 to 14% raise. Compare that to 3 to 5% in soft mobey raises and 20 plus in hard raise and that does not sound so good. In addition with fleet plan changes the company could reduce are transatlantic flying more then the TA. Not something I would be in favor of!