One side is mistaken
06-24-2015, 03:39 PM
#1
Snake
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2015
Posts: 242
One side is mistaken
Respectfully, one of us is wrong, but it's much less expensive if I am wrong.
I am voting in favor of this TA. Most of my heartburn was wrapped around sick and scheduling changes.
The give on sick leave is that verification is different; different threshold, different metric with hours turning to work days, and no early verification.
Oh, and we can’t call in sick and greenslip our way to fame and fortune anymore.
Here are the gets:
No change to sick leave benefits if you are (actually) sick. Zero.
FAA Leave while a pilot waits to get his medical back from Oklahoma City. 60 days of full pay, none of which counts against his thresholds or benefits.
Elimination of income offsets for those pilots on disability over 36 months.
A disability account that could extend the time a pilot will be on 100% pay when he transitions from temporary to long-term disability.
Pilots enduring psychiatric conditions have significantly improved benefits. I’m amazed that this hasn’t caught on here at APC.
Simple question guys. Would you pass over all those improved benefits, which could literally save the lives of thousands of pilots, over a change to verification with improved privacy safeguards, and which is entirely HIPPA compliant?
Let’s talk about the scheduling changes:
The give is about two percent of trips withheld from pre-month bidding. I am simply never going to be senior enough for this to matter to me anyway, but I get it that this is a cottage industry for some very senior first officers, who are nonetheless irate over the abrogation of seniority and quality of life.
Go read it – it’s a jumble of conditional terms that anyone could drive a truck through; the top quarter still get to play the “on-the-payroll-but-off-the-clock” game, and it only applies when the OE involves a pilot flying out of his own base. I’m betting it’s closer to the top 40 percent who see no change to this issue.
This is from the latest NNP:
"As an example, if the company withheld 75 percent of the 3 percent of rotations in the MD88B category in June 2015 then that would effect a maximum of 43 rotations out of 1825 total rotations."
FRMS changes for B777 pilots, to allow short call on the first day of an on-call block, and another FRMS allowing the minimum break-in-duty following cancellation to be 10 hours, down from 13 hours.
The other quid is one hour added to the TLV as part of a one-year test LOA.
What do we get?
They fixed reroute. I think it’s finally fair to both sides. I am now more likely to get premium pay if I get rerouted, and there is an economic disincentive for the company to reroute me.
End-of-month carryover trips rewritten I get premium pay when they fail to honor my bid award.
In exchange for the TLV increase, the RCC gets an edit on the schedule. RCC’s suggested improvements will reflect what pilots actually want, like more one-, two-, and three-day trips. And trips can be worth more credit time, up to 15%. EVERYONE will get better trips, or ALPA takes back the hour of TLV.
Changes to the reserves required formula makes it easier for me to drop lousy trips and pick up better ones.
IVDs offer me the option of using vacation days instead of APDs (except I still get paid), and I have a better chance to use vacation days when my kids aren’t in school, and I’m a lot less sore about that February vacation award.
You knew it was coming, but here’s the question: do you really want to pass up the fix to reroute, and better quality of life options, and better control of your schedule over two percent of trips? Pass up improvements that benefit EVERY pilot, just to hang on to an artificial bonus that only goes to a select few?
Get over it. The OE trip change is industry standard; UAL withholds 75% of OE trips, and AAL withholds 100%. You’re not going to win this one at the NMB.
Actually, there are a lot of things we wouldn’t win at the NMB. The only reason to decline a negotiated deal is the proven existence of a better deal outside of negotiations.
One side of this “alternate path” debate is wrong. Which set of assumptions is more expensive when it proves to be incorrect?
I’m voting in favor of the TA because I know that despite a few blemishes, no deal is perfect, and this proposal not only delivers a lot of value to the pilots; but it also gives the company an unassailable position in mediation.
Suppose this gets voted down. It is my contention that after the cheering stopped, we would observe a gut check on the other side of the street. It would be January before the company met with us again. And I quote:
“…if you vote no, the money for the E190s and the 737s will go to refurbish our RJ-50s. This was not a threat; many of the regional agreements are expiring later this year, and we will feed one way or another. This is part of the impetus to get a deal done early. We currently have a contract; it expires next year. If it is a NO, we will re-open negotiations then...”
Those are the man’s words in public. We would apply jointly to the NMB, just like it says in Section 28, on March 31, 2016.
Two years later, we show up at the NMB and the first thing Puchala sees is this TA, which offers industry leading pay, profit sharing, and work rules; she’s going to look over her glasses at us, and wonder aloud why we didn’t heed her warnings about “slow walks through fantasyland,” and “leaving our inner child at the door.”
What if I’m wrong? Anyone can see that one side of this debate is incapable of self-examination.
If I’m wrong but it passes, I’m still better off than most of my peers in this business. Quarter-million a year sounds pretty good to me. So far it seems that only one side of this debate is capable of introspection or doubt. If I am mistaken about my assessment of how this would play at the NMB, and the deal passes, we are still the highest paid pilots in the world, with work rules and profit sharing that are better than our peers. Some downside.
What if the other side is wrong? How expensive is that? I see a lot of people here and on Facebook saying that the CEO is frightened of pilots (they don’t offer any evidence to support the claim).
We would need a 25.1% raise on January 1, 2017, or 53.8% in 2018 just to match what is on the table today. That’s gonna take a lot more than an inflatable rat.
If I’m wrong, it costs nothing. If they are wrong, the error costs no less than $1,398,800,000 in lost wages.
I am voting in favor of this TA. Most of my heartburn was wrapped around sick and scheduling changes.
The give on sick leave is that verification is different; different threshold, different metric with hours turning to work days, and no early verification.
Oh, and we can’t call in sick and greenslip our way to fame and fortune anymore.
Here are the gets:
No change to sick leave benefits if you are (actually) sick. Zero.
FAA Leave while a pilot waits to get his medical back from Oklahoma City. 60 days of full pay, none of which counts against his thresholds or benefits.
Elimination of income offsets for those pilots on disability over 36 months.
A disability account that could extend the time a pilot will be on 100% pay when he transitions from temporary to long-term disability.
Pilots enduring psychiatric conditions have significantly improved benefits. I’m amazed that this hasn’t caught on here at APC.
Simple question guys. Would you pass over all those improved benefits, which could literally save the lives of thousands of pilots, over a change to verification with improved privacy safeguards, and which is entirely HIPPA compliant?
Let’s talk about the scheduling changes:
The give is about two percent of trips withheld from pre-month bidding. I am simply never going to be senior enough for this to matter to me anyway, but I get it that this is a cottage industry for some very senior first officers, who are nonetheless irate over the abrogation of seniority and quality of life.
Go read it – it’s a jumble of conditional terms that anyone could drive a truck through; the top quarter still get to play the “on-the-payroll-but-off-the-clock” game, and it only applies when the OE involves a pilot flying out of his own base. I’m betting it’s closer to the top 40 percent who see no change to this issue.
This is from the latest NNP:
"As an example, if the company withheld 75 percent of the 3 percent of rotations in the MD88B category in June 2015 then that would effect a maximum of 43 rotations out of 1825 total rotations."
FRMS changes for B777 pilots, to allow short call on the first day of an on-call block, and another FRMS allowing the minimum break-in-duty following cancellation to be 10 hours, down from 13 hours.
The other quid is one hour added to the TLV as part of a one-year test LOA.
What do we get?
They fixed reroute. I think it’s finally fair to both sides. I am now more likely to get premium pay if I get rerouted, and there is an economic disincentive for the company to reroute me.
End-of-month carryover trips rewritten I get premium pay when they fail to honor my bid award.
In exchange for the TLV increase, the RCC gets an edit on the schedule. RCC’s suggested improvements will reflect what pilots actually want, like more one-, two-, and three-day trips. And trips can be worth more credit time, up to 15%. EVERYONE will get better trips, or ALPA takes back the hour of TLV.
Changes to the reserves required formula makes it easier for me to drop lousy trips and pick up better ones.
IVDs offer me the option of using vacation days instead of APDs (except I still get paid), and I have a better chance to use vacation days when my kids aren’t in school, and I’m a lot less sore about that February vacation award.
You knew it was coming, but here’s the question: do you really want to pass up the fix to reroute, and better quality of life options, and better control of your schedule over two percent of trips? Pass up improvements that benefit EVERY pilot, just to hang on to an artificial bonus that only goes to a select few?
Get over it. The OE trip change is industry standard; UAL withholds 75% of OE trips, and AAL withholds 100%. You’re not going to win this one at the NMB.
Actually, there are a lot of things we wouldn’t win at the NMB. The only reason to decline a negotiated deal is the proven existence of a better deal outside of negotiations.
One side of this “alternate path” debate is wrong. Which set of assumptions is more expensive when it proves to be incorrect?
I’m voting in favor of the TA because I know that despite a few blemishes, no deal is perfect, and this proposal not only delivers a lot of value to the pilots; but it also gives the company an unassailable position in mediation.
Suppose this gets voted down. It is my contention that after the cheering stopped, we would observe a gut check on the other side of the street. It would be January before the company met with us again. And I quote:
“…if you vote no, the money for the E190s and the 737s will go to refurbish our RJ-50s. This was not a threat; many of the regional agreements are expiring later this year, and we will feed one way or another. This is part of the impetus to get a deal done early. We currently have a contract; it expires next year. If it is a NO, we will re-open negotiations then...”
Those are the man’s words in public. We would apply jointly to the NMB, just like it says in Section 28, on March 31, 2016.
Two years later, we show up at the NMB and the first thing Puchala sees is this TA, which offers industry leading pay, profit sharing, and work rules; she’s going to look over her glasses at us, and wonder aloud why we didn’t heed her warnings about “slow walks through fantasyland,” and “leaving our inner child at the door.”
What if I’m wrong? Anyone can see that one side of this debate is incapable of self-examination.
If I’m wrong but it passes, I’m still better off than most of my peers in this business. Quarter-million a year sounds pretty good to me. So far it seems that only one side of this debate is capable of introspection or doubt. If I am mistaken about my assessment of how this would play at the NMB, and the deal passes, we are still the highest paid pilots in the world, with work rules and profit sharing that are better than our peers. Some downside.
What if the other side is wrong? How expensive is that? I see a lot of people here and on Facebook saying that the CEO is frightened of pilots (they don’t offer any evidence to support the claim).
We would need a 25.1% raise on January 1, 2017, or 53.8% in 2018 just to match what is on the table today. That’s gonna take a lot more than an inflatable rat.
If I’m wrong, it costs nothing. If they are wrong, the error costs no less than $1,398,800,000 in lost wages.
06-24-2015, 03:50 PM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 102
You are smoking crack. The LCA issue is a lot more than 2%. It affects the seniority bidding power and the qol and bidding power of almost every FO on the line. Greenslips will dry up like the martian soil. We are talking about increasing productivity 5% plus as we are accelerating training with no gain for FO's. Sick leave is a red herring. sick leave has accelerated due to increased work pace and an aging work force. /wait til you need an knee replacement, or need to be evaluated for sleep apnea. You know not of which you speak. This at a time when we are earning un heard of record profits... RA has 17.9 million shares of delta shares and Ed Bastian is buying a Ritz Carlton with our sacrificial bankruptcy wages. Oh by the way, we have a nice Me-Too clause which will lead to automatic wage increases if we do nothing (which are watered down by PS if we pass this TA). Additionally we are forcing PS reductions on our fellow workers by passing this TA to fund this measely 14% raise over 3 years. Which is more than offset by the productivity gains and cuts in PS on or fellow emplyoyees. Don't get me started. BTW are you dalpa p2p? You sure sound like it.
Last edited by Pilotfo64; 06-24-2015 at 04:07 PM.
06-24-2015, 03:52 PM
#3
La Familia Delta
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B-717 FO / C-17 AC
Posts: 2,467
you hinted you don't have much time left? will you be around for c2018? are you a military retiree? I disagree with you on so many levels but at this point whats done is done. The arguments have been made on both sides. I choose to defend my profession. You chose the quick $$ and gave in to a bully. Whatever happens we're in this together, I don't disrespect you but I do wish you had more courage, because anything pilots have ever achieved since the dawn of the airline industry came from taking a stand for what you believe in.
06-24-2015, 03:55 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 551
it says he's a 7ER FO (don't see how you can be in favor of this if you're an FO). Your arguments sound like a regurgitation of the roadshow slides and not a digging into the actual language. Also, why are you quaking in your boots about the NMB? We're still 6 months out until this current contract is even ammendable!
06-24-2015, 04:06 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: DAL 757 FO
Posts: 192
I could see how you'd vote yes if every scenario besides a yes equals the nuclear option of the NMB forcing terms on us. But for the record you left out more Large RJs, elimation of RJ flight restrictions, loosening wide body scope via Jv language, and unilateral ability of the MEC Chairman to allow Delta to paint another companies airplanes in our livery.
Do we really trust our chairman with this? Taken verbatim form the TA Section 1-E.9
9. 9. Except as approved by the Delta MEC Chairman, or as otherwise provided by Section 27 1 E., a carrier engaged in international partner flying will maintain a separate operating 28 and corporate identity from the Company including, but not limited to, name, trade name, 29 logo, livery, trademarks or service marks. The Delta MEC Chairman may, at his option, 30 approve the use by a carrier engaged in international partner flying of a trade name, 31 brand, logo, trademarks, service marks, aircraft livery or aircraft paint scheme currently 32 or in the future utilized by the Company or any Company affiliate.
Do we really trust our chairman with this? Taken verbatim form the TA Section 1-E.9
9. 9. Except as approved by the Delta MEC Chairman, or as otherwise provided by Section 27 1 E., a carrier engaged in international partner flying will maintain a separate operating 28 and corporate identity from the Company including, but not limited to, name, trade name, 29 logo, livery, trademarks or service marks. The Delta MEC Chairman may, at his option, 30 approve the use by a carrier engaged in international partner flying of a trade name, 31 brand, logo, trademarks, service marks, aircraft livery or aircraft paint scheme currently 32 or in the future utilized by the Company or any Company affiliate.
06-24-2015, 04:13 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Position: Cockpit speaker volume knob set to eleven.
Posts: 1,410
Originally Posted by rube
Respectfully, one of us is wrong, but it's much less expensive if I am wrong.
No one is wrong... it is just how much of a concession you are willing to take.
I am voting in favor of this TA. Most of my heartburn was wrapped around sick and scheduling changes.
The give on sick leave is that verification is different; different threshold, different metric with hours turning to work days, and no early verification.
maybe the big increase in sick leave they claim is simply how it is measured. look at the new language... you are assumed well after calling in sick for a trip unless you specify. Were they measuring all the days before the well call before?
Oh, and we can’t call in sick and greenslip our way to fame and fortune anymore.
Here are the gets:
No change to sick leave benefits if you are (actually) sick. Zero.
True, but the BS required to get there is quite different... please don't insult me and assume I am a cheater because I am sick.
FAA Leave while a pilot waits to get his medical back from Oklahoma City. 60 days of full pay, none of which counts against his thresholds or benefits.
Elimination of income offsets for those pilots on disability over 36 months.
A disability account that could extend the time a pilot will be on 100% pay when he transitions from temporary to long-term disability.
Pilots enduring psychiatric conditions have significantly improved benefits. I’m amazed that this hasn’t caught on here at APC.
Simple question guys. Would you pass over all those improved benefits, which could literally save the lives of thousands of pilots, over a change to verification with improved privacy safeguards, and which is entirely HIPPA compliant?
Are you really that worried about the guys you fly with?
Let’s talk about the scheduling changes:
The give is about two percent of trips withheld from pre-month bidding. I am simply never going to be senior enough for this to matter to me anyway, but I get it that this is a cottage industry for some very senior first officers, who are nonetheless irate over the abrogation of seniority and quality of life.
Total ALPA BS. If you pull any percentage of trips from the trip pool... it affects ALL F/Os. It is disingenuous to say it only affect a few percent.
Go read it – it’s a jumble of conditional terms that anyone could drive a truck through; the top quarter still get to play the “on-the-payroll-but-off-the-clock” game, and it only applies when the OE involves a pilot flying out of his own base. I’m betting it’s closer to the top 40 percent who see no change to this issue.
This is from the latest NNP:
"As an example, if the company withheld 75 percent of the 3 percent of rotations in the MD88B category in June 2015 then that would effect a maximum of 43 rotations out of 1825 total rotations."
FRMS changes for B777 pilots, to allow short call on the first day of an on-call block, and another FRMS allowing the minimum break-in-duty following cancellation to be 10 hours, down from 13 hours.
The other quid is one hour added to the TLV as part of a one-year test LOA.
you think it will only last one year? How long have you been here?
What do we get?
They fixed reroute. I think it’s finally fair to both sides. I am now more likely to get premium pay if I get rerouted, and there is an economic disincentive for the company to reroute me.
End-of-month carryover trips rewritten I get premium pay when they fail to honor my bid award.
In exchange for the TLV increase, the RCC gets an edit on the schedule. RCC’s suggested improvements will reflect what pilots actually want, like more one-, two-, and three-day trips. And trips can be worth more credit time, up to 15%. EVERYONE will get better trips, or ALPA takes back the hour of TLV.
Changes to the reserves required formula makes it easier for me to drop lousy trips and pick up better ones.
IVDs offer me the option of using vacation days instead of APDs (except I still get paid), and I have a better chance to use vacation days when my kids aren’t in school, and I’m a lot less sore about that February vacation award.
You knew it was coming, but here’s the question: do you really want to pass up the fix to reroute, and better quality of life options, and better control of your schedule over two percent of trips? Pass up improvements that benefit EVERY pilot, just to hang on to an artificial bonus that only goes to a select few?
Get over it. The OE trip change is industry standard; UAL withholds 75% of OE trips, and AAL withholds 100%. You’re not going to win this one at the NMB.
Actually, there are a lot of things we wouldn’t win at the NMB. The only reason to decline a negotiated deal is the proven existence of a better deal outside of negotiations.
One side of this “alternate path” debate is wrong. Which set of assumptions is more expensive when it proves to be incorrect?
I’m voting in favor of the TA because I know that despite a few blemishes, no deal is perfect, and this proposal not only delivers a lot of value to the pilots; but it also gives the company an unassailable position in mediation.
Suppose this gets voted down. It is my contention that after the cheering stopped, we would observe a gut check on the other side of the street. It would be January before the company met with us again. And I quote:
Are you sure? And if that turns out to be the case... so what?
“…if you vote no, the money for the E190s and the 737s will go to refurbish our RJ-50s. This was not a threat; many of the regional agreements are expiring later this year, and we will feed one way or another. This is part of the impetus to get a deal done early. We currently have a contract; it expires next year. If it is a NO, we will re-open negotiations then...”
Where did you come up with that one? They can't fly the 50 seat aircraft they have now and that will only get worse. Why do you think they want more large RJs? And why do you think the RJ mileage and hub to hub restrictions were removed? We should not be in the business of negotiating new aircraft.
Those are the man’s words in public. We would apply jointly to the NMB, just like it says in Section 28, on March 31, 2016.
Two years later, we show up at the NMB and the first thing Puchala sees is this TA, which offers industry leading pay, profit sharing, and work rules; she’s going to look over her glasses at us, and wonder aloud why we didn’t heed her warnings about “slow walks through fantasyland,” and “leaving our inner child at the door.”
Pure APLA FUD
What if I’m wrong? Anyone can see that one side of this debate is incapable of self-examination.
If I’m wrong but it passes, I’m still better off than most of my peers in this business. Quarter-million a year sounds pretty good to me. So far it seems that only one side of this debate is capable of introspection or doubt. If I am mistaken about my assessment of how this would play at the NMB, and the deal passes, we are still the highest paid pilots in the world, with work rules and profit sharing that are better than our peers. Some downside.
Glad you are willing to accept downside in this negotiating environment... I am not.
What if the other side is wrong? How expensive is that? I see a lot of people here and on Facebook saying that the CEO is frightened of pilots (they don’t offer any evidence to support the claim).
We would need a 25.1% raise on January 1, 2017, or 53.8% in 2018 just to match what is on the table today. That’s gonna take a lot more than an inflatable rat.
Compared to what? Show your math on that one
If I’m wrong, it costs nothing. If they are wrong, the error costs no less than $1,398,800,000 in lost wages.
No one is wrong... it is just how much of a concession you are willing to take.
I am voting in favor of this TA. Most of my heartburn was wrapped around sick and scheduling changes.
The give on sick leave is that verification is different; different threshold, different metric with hours turning to work days, and no early verification.
maybe the big increase in sick leave they claim is simply how it is measured. look at the new language... you are assumed well after calling in sick for a trip unless you specify. Were they measuring all the days before the well call before?
Oh, and we can’t call in sick and greenslip our way to fame and fortune anymore.
Here are the gets:
No change to sick leave benefits if you are (actually) sick. Zero.
True, but the BS required to get there is quite different... please don't insult me and assume I am a cheater because I am sick.
FAA Leave while a pilot waits to get his medical back from Oklahoma City. 60 days of full pay, none of which counts against his thresholds or benefits.
Elimination of income offsets for those pilots on disability over 36 months.
A disability account that could extend the time a pilot will be on 100% pay when he transitions from temporary to long-term disability.
Pilots enduring psychiatric conditions have significantly improved benefits. I’m amazed that this hasn’t caught on here at APC.
Simple question guys. Would you pass over all those improved benefits, which could literally save the lives of thousands of pilots, over a change to verification with improved privacy safeguards, and which is entirely HIPPA compliant?
Are you really that worried about the guys you fly with?
Let’s talk about the scheduling changes:
The give is about two percent of trips withheld from pre-month bidding. I am simply never going to be senior enough for this to matter to me anyway, but I get it that this is a cottage industry for some very senior first officers, who are nonetheless irate over the abrogation of seniority and quality of life.
Total ALPA BS. If you pull any percentage of trips from the trip pool... it affects ALL F/Os. It is disingenuous to say it only affect a few percent.
Go read it – it’s a jumble of conditional terms that anyone could drive a truck through; the top quarter still get to play the “on-the-payroll-but-off-the-clock” game, and it only applies when the OE involves a pilot flying out of his own base. I’m betting it’s closer to the top 40 percent who see no change to this issue.
This is from the latest NNP:
"As an example, if the company withheld 75 percent of the 3 percent of rotations in the MD88B category in June 2015 then that would effect a maximum of 43 rotations out of 1825 total rotations."
FRMS changes for B777 pilots, to allow short call on the first day of an on-call block, and another FRMS allowing the minimum break-in-duty following cancellation to be 10 hours, down from 13 hours.
The other quid is one hour added to the TLV as part of a one-year test LOA.
you think it will only last one year? How long have you been here?
What do we get?
They fixed reroute. I think it’s finally fair to both sides. I am now more likely to get premium pay if I get rerouted, and there is an economic disincentive for the company to reroute me.
End-of-month carryover trips rewritten I get premium pay when they fail to honor my bid award.
In exchange for the TLV increase, the RCC gets an edit on the schedule. RCC’s suggested improvements will reflect what pilots actually want, like more one-, two-, and three-day trips. And trips can be worth more credit time, up to 15%. EVERYONE will get better trips, or ALPA takes back the hour of TLV.
Changes to the reserves required formula makes it easier for me to drop lousy trips and pick up better ones.
IVDs offer me the option of using vacation days instead of APDs (except I still get paid), and I have a better chance to use vacation days when my kids aren’t in school, and I’m a lot less sore about that February vacation award.
You knew it was coming, but here’s the question: do you really want to pass up the fix to reroute, and better quality of life options, and better control of your schedule over two percent of trips? Pass up improvements that benefit EVERY pilot, just to hang on to an artificial bonus that only goes to a select few?
Get over it. The OE trip change is industry standard; UAL withholds 75% of OE trips, and AAL withholds 100%. You’re not going to win this one at the NMB.
Actually, there are a lot of things we wouldn’t win at the NMB. The only reason to decline a negotiated deal is the proven existence of a better deal outside of negotiations.
One side of this “alternate path” debate is wrong. Which set of assumptions is more expensive when it proves to be incorrect?
I’m voting in favor of the TA because I know that despite a few blemishes, no deal is perfect, and this proposal not only delivers a lot of value to the pilots; but it also gives the company an unassailable position in mediation.
Suppose this gets voted down. It is my contention that after the cheering stopped, we would observe a gut check on the other side of the street. It would be January before the company met with us again. And I quote:
Are you sure? And if that turns out to be the case... so what?
“…if you vote no, the money for the E190s and the 737s will go to refurbish our RJ-50s. This was not a threat; many of the regional agreements are expiring later this year, and we will feed one way or another. This is part of the impetus to get a deal done early. We currently have a contract; it expires next year. If it is a NO, we will re-open negotiations then...”
Where did you come up with that one? They can't fly the 50 seat aircraft they have now and that will only get worse. Why do you think they want more large RJs? And why do you think the RJ mileage and hub to hub restrictions were removed? We should not be in the business of negotiating new aircraft.
Those are the man’s words in public. We would apply jointly to the NMB, just like it says in Section 28, on March 31, 2016.
Two years later, we show up at the NMB and the first thing Puchala sees is this TA, which offers industry leading pay, profit sharing, and work rules; she’s going to look over her glasses at us, and wonder aloud why we didn’t heed her warnings about “slow walks through fantasyland,” and “leaving our inner child at the door.”
Pure APLA FUD
What if I’m wrong? Anyone can see that one side of this debate is incapable of self-examination.
If I’m wrong but it passes, I’m still better off than most of my peers in this business. Quarter-million a year sounds pretty good to me. So far it seems that only one side of this debate is capable of introspection or doubt. If I am mistaken about my assessment of how this would play at the NMB, and the deal passes, we are still the highest paid pilots in the world, with work rules and profit sharing that are better than our peers. Some downside.
Glad you are willing to accept downside in this negotiating environment... I am not.
What if the other side is wrong? How expensive is that? I see a lot of people here and on Facebook saying that the CEO is frightened of pilots (they don’t offer any evidence to support the claim).
We would need a 25.1% raise on January 1, 2017, or 53.8% in 2018 just to match what is on the table today. That’s gonna take a lot more than an inflatable rat.
Compared to what? Show your math on that one
If I’m wrong, it costs nothing. If they are wrong, the error costs no less than $1,398,800,000 in lost wages.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
