Originally Posted by sailingfun

Those would all be good things and are simple cost items like any other aspect of the contract. The company on the short call subject might respond like this. You were once on shortcall every on call day. You asked for and we gave you a long call system dramatically reducing short call days. Now you want to be paid more for those remaining short call days?
.

Originally Posted by Purple Drank

So if the company pushescback we shouldn't d.add it to our list?

That explains a lot about how we got here

Originally Posted by rube

(1) requiring a 19-0 vote turns us into Poland circa 1938. So what you're saying is that if we all just go along with Schnitzler, then everything will be fine? Got it. Unfortunately, I don't think negotiations are going anywhere unless the Cartel actually commits to something. Each status rep has a VOTE, not a VETO.

(2) no sell job? The Admin and Policy Manuals both require the NC to provide support for the deal, and to write a TA Analysis. No dumping it on the pilots like APA. But hey, see above, the politics are going to make the next TA roll out very differently.

(3) Strategically, the only reason to vote against any negotiated agreement is the certainty of a superior outcome in mediation.

(4) $200-$300 in gains? You want less than the last TA? It doesn't matter what you want, because you're only going to get what you can leverage. The market conditions and business plan set the leverage, profits determine how far you can go with it.

The rest is cherry picking. FedEx has a couple of work rule issues (esp. reserve) that compare less favorably to ours. And there are a couple items in the ALK PWA that would be deal breakers at DAL.

All of it counts in costing.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

Newk, all they care about is pay raises. On fpl none of the rest matters heme the absolute hypocritical framing of the sales push.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

Newk, all they care about is pay raises. On fpl none of the rest matters heme the absolute hypocritical framing of the sales push.

Originally Posted by newKnow

Why is it that you guys only bring up costing when you want to prove how hard it would be for us to get certain things, but you never mention it when it comes to what the company wants?

How much was the new sick leave policy costed for? How about LCA OE flying? What about the new JV language?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? It should be.

This is another reason why you guys have lost credibility.


By they way, there is another reason to vote no against a negotiated agreement:

If the contract you already have is better than the TA you have been offered.

Originally Posted by sailingfun

Those would all be good things and are simple cost items like any other aspect of the contract. The company on the short call subject might respond like this. You were once on shortcall every on call day. You asked for and we gave you a long call system dramatically reducing short call days. Now you want to be paid more for those remaining short call days?
Reserve over the last 25 years is by a large margin the most improved section of the contract.

Originally Posted by sailingfun

I suspect many costing numbers are considered confidential by the company. Everything in a contract is costed to arrive at a net number. That is where the 1.1 billion comes from. That number has not been in dispute even with the no voters.
Sick leave overall is currently costing the company 120 million a year. If the new program reduced sick leave usage 10% the cost savings would be 12 million a year. 25% then the savings is 30 million a year minus the cost to set up a AME department. I doubt that's more then 1 million a year.

Originally Posted by sailingfun

Compensation has big job implications. As pay rises pilots tend to work less. As a example the average total hours per pilot has slowly dropped since contract 2012. We were told on this forum we would be working a lot more.