Originally Posted by Phuz

Costing out work rule concessions is a subjective matter. Every pilot would assign a different value to each work rule concession.

The pilot group at large decided that the concessions presented were in fact not worth the money offered. You folks are going to have to accept that. You are not smarter than the pilots who voted NO, you just have a different opinion as to what those concessions were worth.

Originally Posted by Doug Madsen

Really? Why don't you ask your reps. They've seen it broken down line item by line item. Of course, those reps who, despite seeing the costing breakdown, and not saying a single word challenging its accuracy, subsequently tried (successfully) to kill the deal by putting statements in Council Communiques that said, "The initial 8% hourly pay increase in the TA is offset by some 4% with the JV production balance, sick leave, and productivity concessions for a net increase of roughly 4%."

Blatant lie.

Originally Posted by gloopy

The 1.1B was ridiculously high and everyone knows it.

But rather than call anyone out on it, I'd embrace it. Then offer to give back 100M (October is right around the corner... we could singlehandedly give more to BCRF than DL has given to it in their history, and perhaps find a cure) by taking only 1.0B and putting it in pay only. Done. Labor risk off the table. Quick deal. RA looks like a genius.

No one will ever admit the 1.1B was farce and not costed out anywhere near correct. Ever. So use that against them and "save" them 100M and then let them try to flail around explaining why they don't want 100M in free money to get an instant contract done.

#zoneofreasonableness

Originally Posted by sailingfun

Even the no voters in the joint letter conceded the costing was correct. The pay components alone we worth over 550 million a year in 30 months. (21.5% pay,1% DC, 1% vac/train). If the company is making over 6 million in PTEX there will be a loss of 125 million however the net gain was in excess of 400 million a year.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

Post the letter please.

Carl

Originally Posted by DogWhisperer

Originally Posted by gloopy

The 1.1B was ridiculously high and everyone knows it.

But rather than call anyone out on it, I'd embrace it. Then offer to give back 100M (October is right around the corner... we could singlehandedly give more to BCRF than DL has given to it in their history, and perhaps find a cure) by taking only 1.0B and putting it in pay only. Done. Labor risk off the table. Quick deal. RA looks like a genius.

No one will ever admit the 1.1B was farce and not costed out anywhere near correct. Ever. So use that against them and "save" them 100M and then let them try to flail around explaining why they don't want 100M in free money to get an instant contract done.

#zoneofreasonableness

Originally Posted by Herkflyr

Yeahhhh...

I voted against this TA, and would again. I think DALPA is being delusional if they think that social media caused the NO vote. One of the earlier posts stated it best. The TA language resulted in the NO vote, not any social media spin.

But your post smacks of the same nonsense that so often populates these boards. Most ALPA reps--believe it or not--are not looking to line up at the trough, put in a resume for the Moak Group or any other such conspiratorial stuff. They put themselves out there to do what they thought was best--represent their pilots

If you think that they have done a poor job, then that is fine. There is a recall process, or there is a process to elect replacement reps when the time comes.

And whenever that time comes, those reps will have to deal with the company, deal with day to day issues, deal with negotiations, all in a fairly thankless job so that internet tough guys can throw proverbial slings and arrows their way.

I can still remember a particular day. I was in town in 2008 for a scheduling-related meeting (when I did some LEC scheduling work). At the exact same time was an MEC meeting and the first joint contract TA was announced literally that evening. I was talking to one my LEC reps. Within MINUTES he gets a text from someone just like you that stated "thanks a lot *******"

Now I doubt you will even find anyone who laments that contract as it was a good agreement at that particular time. THAT is the BS that reps have to deal with every day, that you have not a flipping clue about.

So though I disagree with my reps, and the TA, and felt that it never should have been sent to the membership without an enthusiastic MEC endorsement, I will not demonize them, nor attribute selfish greedy motives to them that clearly do not exist other than in internet message board land.