Its apples and oranges with comparisons. The non contracts do not have a terminated pension plan..... and are not expected to or ever been demanded to take a 40+% paycut to save the company.

To engage in this flavor conversation is counterproductive.

 

Is certainly lowers the burden of proof for violating the status quo.

 

Should we file a grievance if it is determined to be inappropriate?

If after investigating the facts it's appropriate, by all means file a grievance, if not, don't. Seems reasonable.

 

The problem is, "appropriate" is a subjective term, and it gives far too much latitude to a weak and ineffective Contract Administration (which is currently led by Moak's appeasement disciples).

 

Hmmmmm, and I thought it directed the MEC Chairman.

 

The evidence is there, are our lawyers going to find it and recommend action? The real question is their threshold for appropriateness, which is different from the original resolution. They are building their excuse to get out of definitive action.

 

Who is they? The administration has a green light if the administration deems a grievance appropriate. Is the MEC administration "they?"

 

"They" are the people who claim to work on behalf of the pilots who haven't received the message that it is time for restoration and an end to appeasement, they know whom they are. If you can't support the direction the majority has chosen then you can't support the direction the majority has chosen.

Bankruptcy and record profits are THE opposite ends of the financial spectrum. It's time.

 

I'm just thinking out loud here. 3.B.4 guarantees that we will see pay rate increases, albeit relatively slow given the departure from the status quo of how the company has traditionally given pay increases to non-contracts. It's pretty much a given that American and United will be getting higher pay rates, especially since they don't have any kind of profit sharing. It's also relatively safe to say that our non-contracts will be getting raises again eventually. Failed TA2015 focused almost exclusively on pay rates and had almost zero quality of life improvements, and arguably had some quality of life concessions.

With that said, wouldn't it stand to reason that we concentrate our efforts on increasing QOL and "soft pay"? Why would we even consider giving up profit sharing for small pay rate increases that will be coming our way anyways in time? Keeping our profit sharing untouched guarantees that we will be compensated when times start getting better after the next downturn. We should be looking at increasing retirement, medical, vacation, time off, etc. There are other places to make money besides pay rates. Lets put that alleged $1.1 billion of "value" towards other things besides just pay rates. Again, the pay rates are coming our way anyways. Furthermore, our vacation is extremely inadequate. It was better at the regional I worked for. It basically amounts to one four day trip per week of vacation. Added vacation pay without the time off is a joke. I'm sure most of you have already thought of this stuff, but I thought I would throw it out there anyways.

 

Great Post!

Scoop