I'm fine with that note, provided they pay for it in all cases, and accept it in all cases if from a defined QHCP. Any burden of proof to prove "abuse" is 100% on them and must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, not just implied because it "couldn't be verified" and I'll be fine with that section.

In fact, I actually hope the previous green slip shadow trip provision is included because that was 100% fair and would at least de-incentivize at least some theoretical abuse. It would put to bed the colloquial wisdom that getting a GS after a sick call is automatic abuse, which is BS. Guys who have blanket GS requests in and who do a lot and then get one after a sick anyway can't possibly be viewed as suspicious, otherwise don't allow them to put in for it.

 

I'll agree with taking a breath, but I don't want to hold it for too long.

It's been a year since Anderson made that statement. So far, I'm down about $30,000. While that's certainly not bad for everyone, it's bad as far as I'm concerned.

Maybe we'll recover it. But I don't think we should be crowing as if it's a fait accompli.

 

So you stipulate that Donatelli reported there was no more money?

 

I find it very disappointing. This is still playing out and guys are already calling for heads to roll - lets at least see what happens before we try MEC v3.0.

Scoop

 

I wish I could remember who posted the following statement, but I'm going to repeat it:

Everyone repeat after me; there is no sick leave abuse. Never turn against the family to side with mgmt. There are things that mgmt can fix right now to end what they perceive as abuse, but there is no sick leave abuse.

 

Yup. As far as the sick note, I agree absolutely. If they force me to get it, they pay for it. And since it takes me awhile to get in to see my Dr, it might take awhile.

I don't know enough about the GS thing of which you speak to comment.

 

I didn't hear all of his speeches, so I can't say one way or the other. I believe what I heard is that "at the time," we had gotten all we were going to get. The pilot group gambled that we could get more in a protracted battle. It remains to be seen if they were right.

So far, factors have changed to help us. UAL, AMR, and UPS raised the bar (they just as easily could not have). Anderson retired and Bastian is not compelled to uphold promises that were made before he took command (that just as easily could have been different). The company is still making money (anyone who's been in this industry any length of time knows that is no given).

In short, the risky gamble might still pay off. I hope to hell it does. But there are strong indications that we are trying to double down. So until we sign a contract, I think I'll hold off on opening the champagne that some seem to be drinking.

 

Lets talk a little about the TVM. This is one of the most distorted topics on SM and usually slanted to further an agenda.

TVM is very important but every analysis I have seen is limited to how much extra money we need in 2 or 3 years to be at the same point at the end of the contract cycle. No analysis looking further down the road.

Well the one cycle analysis is absolutely true if one is retiring at the end of this cycle. But the other often overlooked side of the coin is the value of compounding. If we net a deal worth just 3% more and every subsequent TA is started on a baseline 3% higher - what is the breakeven point and would more guys benefit in the long run or lose value?

I think its pretty obvious that the short time folks would lose out but the vast majority of Pilots would greatly benefit from a 1-2 year delay with a subsequent 3% higher baseline. I am not saying its right or wrong but with every new hire off probation the focus is slowly shifting to the long term interest of the Pilot group vs the short term.

OBTW - I am fairly optimistic that we will beat TA-1 by more than 3%.

Scoop

 

It just clarifies the agenda of those doing the loudest yelling. Disappointing, but not at all surprising.

 

I don't think anybody has argued this as not being true... up to a point. (The hole in the theorem is that you don't have that money during the waiting period to invest, but for sake of argument I will give you the point)

However, what is disturbing in your post is exactly what I said earlier. "**** you James, I can wait to get mine". But when looked at from the other perspective, the short timers are vilified as not caring about those that come after them. The very definition of hypocritical.