Originally Posted by LeineLodge (Post 1911242)

Scambo,

If you are one of the relatively few FO's that makes more than the CA's they fly with then I get it. It will impact your niche.

I've done the math and for me and many others it is a significantly positive contract. Not the one I wanted, but it's not "spun costs" unless you're the guy that gets all of his trips bought every month. I understand why that guy would be ****ed.

I'm not dismissing the reps that are speaking out against it. However I've read what they wrote and have come to a different conclusion.

My flame on comment was referring to the wave of negativity in this echo chamber. Anyone who dare speak up that they see some positives in this TA is labelled a coward, weak, Stockholm syndrome'd, mathematically challenged, or my new favorite....traitor :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Scoop (Post 1911278)

From Negotiators Notepad 15-04 June 16th

Implementation
The Company expects to be ready to fully implement the new sick leave items by the end of the year. In the interim, the look back periods for both the verification and medical release thresholds will look back no further than the beginning of the current sick leave year, June 1, 2015. That means any missed work days prior to June 1st will not count toward any thresholds. The 365-day metric will grow from that point as will the 1095-day metric. For example, if the new program is fully implemented on December 1, 2015 the initial look back will only be the number of missed work days since June 1, 2015. It will continue to grow until the 365-day point is reached and then will begin a rolling 365-day look back. The same will occur with the 1095-day metric.


The company originally wanted the 3 year look-back to be retroactive but they have already backed off on this.

So much for the myth of the "Last, best offer." Its called bargaining guys. We are allowed to hold out for more. They came to us for an early deal - they want something. We have leverage.

Scoop

Originally Posted by Klondike Bear (Post 1911222)

That might be a little harsh. I would say hard labor for life would be more appropriate. Send them to the Gulag!

Originally Posted by Herkflyr (Post 1911270)

"Destroy the next 30 years of your life?"

If a poor TA defines your happiness or lack thereof perhaps you need to reexamine what motivates you in life.

I hope this TA fails, and then we go back and fix what is lacking. That may take some time I admit.

But even if it passes I won't stake my own well being on it.

In fact if it passes two years from now half the no voters will hardly remember... which is how it always is (I still remember a captain swearing he was quitting ALPA due to the extreme concessions of now-revered C2K).

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1911283)

Did you have the sense that your union was representing the AA pilots or AA management?

Originally Posted by ClickClickBoom (Post 1911294)

Worse yet, the right seat of an RJ.......

Originally Posted by newKnow (Post 1911135)

Yes. He is within his right to vote as he sees fit. But, just like with politics, we hate it when people vote when they are uninformed.


So, with that in mind, is I t really ok for him to say he's going to vote in favor of the TA, because he will have higher pay rates, if he doesn't know that 5.74% of his January 1, 2016 "pay raise" will be paid by his loss in his profit-sharing?

Don't you want him to at least know that BEFORE you applaud his logic?

I do.

Originally Posted by LeineLodge (Post 1911184)

The next consideration is how a yes or no will play out when the profit rocket changes trajectory. Will we make billions in profit forever? Maybe, maybe not. The PS conversion puts $ in my account as if we made $6B every year whether we do or not.

Originally Posted by Doug Madsen (Post 1911228)

Really? $1,260,000 worth of DAL? No wonder you're voting no. You fly airplanes for a hobby.