|
Originally Posted by Schwanker
(Post 2132367)
It's the concessions. The caving on scope, OE trip drops, mediocre vacation gains, sick language, profit sharing (buying our pay rates)....
This is why it got voted down! The MD-11 refused to honestly address these areas. All they wanted to say is "look at the pay rates" which, by the way, still weren't earth shattering. A complete failure! |
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 2132369)
If that's what it takes to motivate management, then yes.
If they want to keep the FAs and mechanics non-union they can sign our contract. I know it goes against everything you believe in, but -- Your Moakist philosophy failed. We are no longer going to collaborate with management. We are now going to spend money fighting management. Get used to it. |
Originally Posted by WhatNow
(Post 2132372)
Not earth shattering yet higher on average then United's latest agreement.
|
I agree which is why I voted no (for the first time). They were pointless in our highly profitable times.
However more than a few no voters have told me that they honestly thought that they were making more money now than had we ratified the TA, due to 'no PS reduction." They hadn't even listened to the math. (I'm not talking about FOs getting bought off LCA trips then GSing either). I told them that I'm glad they voted no, but emphasized what the no vote should have been based on. In any case a good TA should sell itself. No expensive sales job should be required. |
Originally Posted by WhatNow
(Post 2132372)
Not earth shattering yet higher on average then United's latest agreement.
United did it without concessions. |
Originally Posted by WhatNow
(Post 2132372)
Not earth shattering yet higher on average then United's latest agreement.
Oh...and Delta just got made " investment grade" again....enough is enough. |
Paybanding? (No, I'm not Tsquare). I know this has been discussed on and off forever but it seems like it may be a solution to the small number of the highest paying jets we have here. It could be a win for both us and the company if done correctly. Us: More higher paying positions, less computing to follow the money. The company: Theoretically less training events, movement etc. What are the pros and cons?
|
Originally Posted by JamesBond
(Post 2132377)
Problem is that we would have had a fraction of our pilot group making the rates that they spent so much time and effort championing. I do not GAS how much the 777 makes because we only have 18.
|
Originally Posted by Dat jet
(Post 2132405)
And those pay rates they tried to sell us on included a bastardized way to include pay rate increases with PS included. Company wanted us to be just like the non-cons....a 14% raise with new a PS formula that is much less lucrative. United's pay raises they received are separate than profit sharing....just as ours should be.
Oh...and Delta just got made " investment grade" again....enough is enough. |
Originally Posted by WhatNow
(Post 2132475)
Much less lucritive?
The PS formula is less lucrative. Demonstrably. What is it that you're questioning? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:36 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands