3.B.4
07-01-2015 | 08:15 AM
#2
Sick of whiners
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
From: 767 VEOP
Am I reading too much into it? Or is it truly a clause that looks great at first blush, but is really toothless when you fully analyze the fine print?
If it's the second choice, then I am really getting very weary from all of the escape clause loopholes that the Company has built into the TA (and more importantly, escape clause loopholes that ALPA has permitted to be built in)
.
07-01-2015 | 08:17 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,465
Likes: 0
From: A330 First Officer
I am not an expert, but I have read the entire TA. As I read 3.B.4, it appears that our profit sharing is included in the "me too" calculation. Since AA has zero PS, it appears that any me too bump is unlikely for us as long as our PS is a reasonably large number.
Am I reading too much into it? Or is it truly a clause that looks great at first blush, but is really toothless when you fully analyze the fine print?
If it's the second choice, then I am really getting very weary from all of the escape clause loopholes that the Company has built into the TA (and more importantly, escape clause loopholes that ALPA has permitted to be built in)
.
Am I reading too much into it? Or is it truly a clause that looks great at first blush, but is really toothless when you fully analyze the fine print?
If it's the second choice, then I am really getting very weary from all of the escape clause loopholes that the Company has built into the TA (and more importantly, escape clause loopholes that ALPA has permitted to be built in)
.
07-01-2015 | 08:19 AM
#4
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 244
Likes: 7
I am not an expert, but I have read the entire TA. As I read 3.B.4, it appears that our profit sharing is included in the "me too" calculation. Since AA has zero PS, it appears that any me too bump is unlikely for us as long as our PS is a reasonably large number.
Am I reading too much into it? Or is it truly a clause that looks great at first blush, but is really toothless when you fully analyze the fine print?
If it's the second choice, then I am really getting very weary from all of the escape clause loopholes that the Company has built into the TA (and more importantly, escape clause loopholes that ALPA has permitted to be built in)
.
Am I reading too much into it? Or is it truly a clause that looks great at first blush, but is really toothless when you fully analyze the fine print?
If it's the second choice, then I am really getting very weary from all of the escape clause loopholes that the Company has built into the TA (and more importantly, escape clause loopholes that ALPA has permitted to be built in)
.
07-01-2015 | 10:54 AM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 3
From: Lowest Pay I Could Find
07-01-2015 | 11:03 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Likes: 0
Whether our TA passes or not, 1/1/16 the TA profit sharing reduction goes into effect for all non pilot employees.
The reduction on C2012 resutled in the same. The non pilot employees received 2 raises that year. Their normal raise and another for the reduced profit sharing. They were both either 3% or 4%.
2016 will see the same for them.
See Profit Sharing Contrails.
The reduction on C2012 resutled in the same. The non pilot employees received 2 raises that year. Their normal raise and another for the reduced profit sharing. They were both either 3% or 4%.
2016 will see the same for them.
See Profit Sharing Contrails.
07-01-2015 | 12:56 PM
#8
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
I am not an expert, but I have read the entire TA. As I read 3.B.4, it appears that our profit sharing is included in the "me too" calculation. Since AA has zero PS, it appears that any me too bump is unlikely for us as long as our PS is a reasonably large number.
Am I reading too much into it? Or is it truly a clause that looks great at first blush, but is really toothless when you fully analyze the fine print?
If it's the second choice, then I am really getting very weary from all of the escape clause loopholes that the Company has built into the TA (and more importantly, escape clause loopholes that ALPA has permitted to be built in)
.
Am I reading too much into it? Or is it truly a clause that looks great at first blush, but is really toothless when you fully analyze the fine print?
If it's the second choice, then I am really getting very weary from all of the escape clause loopholes that the Company has built into the TA (and more importantly, escape clause loopholes that ALPA has permitted to be built in)
.
C12, if it remains in effect, could/should be good for about a 3% raise due to 3.B.4.
Iow, voting for TA15 is a vote to not receive the 3.B.4 raise.
07-01-2015 | 01:19 PM
#9
Thread Starter
sharing
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
To be clear, TA15 uses profit sharing as part of your compensation when comparing to other airlines. So, if implemented 3.b.4 is not going to garner any raises during the comparison.
C12, if it remains in effect, could/should be good for about a 3% raise due to 3.B.4.
Iow, voting for TA15 is a vote to not receive the 3.B.4 raise.
C12, if it remains in effect, could/should be good for about a 3% raise due to 3.B.4.
Iow, voting for TA15 is a vote to not receive the 3.B.4 raise.
07-01-2015 | 01:24 PM
#10
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
Now toss in the JV out of compliance annual grievance and add an average 1.5% to that. Even using the pennies on the dollar back room grievance settlement agreed to by our MEC chairman.
The same MEC chairman that TA 15 gives sole authority to for using alter ego foreign airlines to fly international delta passengers in Delta paint.
4.5,4.5,4.5,4.5
Plus profit sharing.
Park me.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
