View Poll Results: Would you vote to ratify the hypothetical TA?
Yes, would vote to ratify
78
27.96%
No, would vote not to ratify
201
72.04%
Voters: 279. You may not vote on this poll
Possible TA?
09-20-2016, 05:33 AM
#131
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: SEA 7ER B
Posts: 108
Originally Posted by Zoomie
...
The RJ industry is almost defunct...
IMO, we are about 3-5 years from bringing all that flying into mainline.
09-20-2016, 05:55 AM
#132
Bus driver
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 830
Originally Posted by Sink r8
You guys are hilarious. Well, you would be, if you weren't talking about real gains and losses affecting real families, as if it's a philosophical point only.
Not only is the MEC not able to wrap-up a deal that trounces TA1 in value when the environment is just about perfect, and all the positive catalysts are baked in, but they're slowing going down a trajectory where they'll underperform TA1 in terms of TVM. And that's assuming no adverse events, and a decent economy, and favorable oil prices.
I think that ANY deal we do, whether now or in years when the MEC falls on their sword, will contain concessions. The only question is whether our total annual returns will be in the fives and sixes (as they could be if we acted this summer), or the threes, if we follow the industry.
So yes, you're right I want to vote before we bypass fives and sixes for quixotic searches for tens and twelves, and end up like everyone else: threes. The longer you wait, the higher the rate increases have to be.
That's where I'm coming from.
Not only is the MEC not able to wrap-up a deal that trounces TA1 in value when the environment is just about perfect, and all the positive catalysts are baked in, but they're slowing going down a trajectory where they'll underperform TA1 in terms of TVM. And that's assuming no adverse events, and a decent economy, and favorable oil prices.
I think that ANY deal we do, whether now or in years when the MEC falls on their sword, will contain concessions. The only question is whether our total annual returns will be in the fives and sixes (as they could be if we acted this summer), or the threes, if we follow the industry.
So yes, you're right I want to vote before we bypass fives and sixes for quixotic searches for tens and twelves, and end up like everyone else: threes. The longer you wait, the higher the rate increases have to be.
That's where I'm coming from.
09-20-2016, 06:15 AM
#133
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 168
Originally Posted by Tanker1497
Some might say you're hilarious. When we see a TA, the majority will again speak. As of the first vote, and now, the majority values QOL over TVM. If the MEC passes a TA on to us, we'll all get the chance to speak again.
The more money I get now, the less I need to work.
09-20-2016, 06:24 AM
#134
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Posts: 228
Originally Posted by Sink r8
You guys are hilarious. Well, you would be, if you weren't talking about real gains and losses affecting real families, as if it's a philosophical point only.
Not only is the MEC not able to wrap-up a deal that trounces TA1 in value when the environment is just about perfect, and all the positive catalysts are baked in, but they're slowing going down a trajectory where they'll underperform TA1 in terms of TVM. And that's assuming no adverse events, and a decent economy, and favorable oil prices.
I think that ANY deal we do, whether now or in years when the MEC falls on their sword, will contain concessions. The only question is whether our total annual returns will be in the fives and sixes (as they could be if we acted this summer), or the threes, if we follow the industry.
So yes, you're right I want to vote before we bypass fives and sixes for quixotic searches for tens and twelves, and end up like everyone else: threes. The longer you wait, the higher the rate increases have to be.
That's where I'm coming from.
Not only is the MEC not able to wrap-up a deal that trounces TA1 in value when the environment is just about perfect, and all the positive catalysts are baked in, but they're slowing going down a trajectory where they'll underperform TA1 in terms of TVM. And that's assuming no adverse events, and a decent economy, and favorable oil prices.
I think that ANY deal we do, whether now or in years when the MEC falls on their sword, will contain concessions. The only question is whether our total annual returns will be in the fives and sixes (as they could be if we acted this summer), or the threes, if we follow the industry.
So yes, you're right I want to vote before we bypass fives and sixes for quixotic searches for tens and twelves, and end up like everyone else: threes. The longer you wait, the higher the rate increases have to be.
That's where I'm coming from.
Dude, NOtHING should be compared to TA1. That thing was a complete abomination! It was horriffic that our union even allowed such BS to be put on paper! Do yourself and your fellow Delta pilots a favor and forget about that NIGHTMARE of a deal!
09-20-2016, 08:49 AM
#136
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Originally Posted by GivemeVSP
Dude, NOtHING should be compared to TA1. That thing was a complete abomination! It was horriffic that our union even allowed such BS to be put on paper! Do yourself and your fellow Delta pilots a favor and forget about that NIGHTMARE of a deal!
I actually agree with them in sending us POSTA2.0 to vote on. I'm confident it will be rejected. That would actually help us WRT the NMB, because it proves our NC/MEC isn't acting rogue. The NMB prefers to see MEMRAT rejections over mere table position differences.
Bring POSTA2.0 to us, for swift reject!
09-20-2016, 09:06 AM
#137
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Originally Posted by TED74
Do you make TVM calculations based on the duration of a single contract? I sense that to be the math behind the impatient minority. It's dangerous thinking if one wants to get this historic opportunity right.
This contract is a baseline for the next...not just ours, but our peers' who will have contracts built upon whatever benchmark we set next. Naturally, it will be those peer contracts that we'll next incorporate into negotiations and debate our next time around.
Or are you expecting everyone to lap us with another contract? Because that could actually happen, while we master-debate over the perfect contract.
09-20-2016, 09:08 AM
#138
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Originally Posted by gloopy
That's the thing though. They're still fighting the POSTA1.0 battle. They still pine for it, resent its rejection, and sincerely think that they have the upper hand due to negotiations fatigue and can "tweak" it and "rearrange the deck chairs" and of course sell it a little better and we'll not only jump at the deal, but they'll get to say SITYS. LOL!
I actually agree with them in sending us POSTA2.0 to vote on. I'm confident it will be rejected. That would actually help us WRT the NMB, because it proves our NC/MEC isn't acting rogue. The NMB prefers to see MEMRAT rejections over mere table position differences.
Bring POSTA2.0 to us, for swift reject!
I actually agree with them in sending us POSTA2.0 to vote on. I'm confident it will be rejected. That would actually help us WRT the NMB, because it proves our NC/MEC isn't acting rogue. The NMB prefers to see MEMRAT rejections over mere table position differences.
Bring POSTA2.0 to us, for swift reject!
No reason to be scared if a vote, is there?
09-20-2016, 09:08 AM
#139
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Originally Posted by Tanker1497
Some might say you're hilarious. When we see a TA, the majority will again speak. As of the first vote, and now, the majority values QOL over TVM. If the MEC passes a TA on to us, we'll all get the chance to speak again.
09-20-2016, 09:17 AM
#140
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: LAX ERA
Posts: 3,457
Originally Posted by gloopy
That's the thing though. They're still fighting the POSTA1.0 battle. They still pine for it, resent its rejection, and sincerely think that they have the upper hand due to negotiations fatigue and can "tweak" it and "rearrange the deck chairs" and of course sell it a little better and we'll not only jump at the deal, but they'll get to say SITYS. LOL!
I actually agree with them in sending us POSTA2.0 to vote on. I'm confident it will be rejected. That would actually help us WRT the NMB, because it proves our NC/MEC isn't acting rogue. The NMB prefers to see MEMRAT rejections over mere table position differences.
Bring POSTA2.0 to us, for swift reject!
I actually agree with them in sending us POSTA2.0 to vote on. I'm confident it will be rejected. That would actually help us WRT the NMB, because it proves our NC/MEC isn't acting rogue. The NMB prefers to see MEMRAT rejections over mere table position differences.
Bring POSTA2.0 to us, for swift reject!
Ferd
