|
Originally Posted by Karnak
(Post 2253489)
Your theory. Mine...pilots saw it as a good deal.
If the rejection of the last deal was "good judgement", what makes you think this wasn't? they want the money now and the typical "we will get them next time!" most lost faith in DALPA being able to do much better the third time around! 82% is a huge number, I hope DALPA/company do not take it the wrong way, because 82% are not happy with how this went down. Enjoy the retro, time will tell how the rest of it plays out! |
Originally Posted by nohat
(Post 2253580)
Because the second time around it took close to a year and a half to get FOCUS PLUS, most of the guys I have spoken to did not want to wait another year and a half for FOCUS ++.
they want the money now and the typical "we will get them next time!" most lost faith in DALPA being able to do much better the third time around! 82% is a huge number, I hope DALPA/company do not take it the wrong way, because 82% are not happy with how this went down. Enjoy the retro, time will tell how the rest of it plays out! And I figure this contract added about $450k to my retirement, so thanks, I will enjoy it. |
As a newbie, Im pretty happy about this. I know it's not perfect, but Im glad as a group the last TA was rejected in favor of this agreement; which is clearly better. Well done ladies and gentlemen!!
|
And the rocket surgeons had a banquet to celebrate. And much ale was consumed -- provided by the ewoks. And the toast that was heard throughout the forest went something like, "Whatever happened with that PEB?"
The end. |
Originally Posted by NMuir
(Post 2253556)
Was there a pay increase? If so, how much?
|
Originally Posted by msp7er
(Post 2253523)
...gonna be quite hard to get em next time when you have a number bigger than 80. That number is gonna smack us "the next time around"
Really? Have you already forgotten the 66% rejection of the first TA? The company will think long and hard about trying another 50.1 + TA. You could just as easily say the lesson here is how much more the company had to cough up to correct for their initial insulting offer. Hard to tell the long term affects of this deal but I think the "Market" for Pilots will play a much more important role in the next TA then a look back to the 82% approval. Scoop |
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 2253494)
I'm not so sure its a "loss of wide body jobs" though.
Set aside the effects of VB for now (since we can and should immediately pull it down IMO) and the only part you can really point to is 48.5 going to 46.5. But that's not really a concession when you look at it in totality. The current 48.5 is based off an asinine 4 year period. For most of that, they can go as low as they want with no limits to how low, as long as they hit 48.5 once. The current one still keeps the 48.5, but allows 46.5 on a hard yearly basis if 650K GHB's are protected, which is a lot more than would be protected even if the 48.5 JV ESK balance maintained. Furthermore, the language states the new "minimum" is an AVERAGE of 46.5%. This means we went from a minimum of 48.5% to an Average of 46.5%. We can throw out numbers all day long; essentially, the company was out of compliance for 6 years and we just gifted them into compliance.
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 2253494)
It doesn't take a lot of math to see how a hard 46.5, even if perfectly maintained as a ceiling (which I don't think they can even do nor will they even try) will yield a greater balance in the TAJV than a no floor/no floor/no floor/48.5 would.
If their goal is to go as low as possible for one year and then catch back up, the TA provision would I guess allow that. But even then the job loss estimate would only be for a year. If the goal is to do as little flying with our pilots as possible on an ongoing basis, then the TA provision actually protects us far more even in the TAJV. That said, either the previous or current language can be rendered almost meaningless by significant changes to equipment, so in that case both are equally lacking. - Allowing the company to do less Atlantic flying than they are currently doing. - If the company goes below 48.5% EASK then it triggers a global protection that is contractually 5% less International flying than we are doing today. If the company flat out did not respect our "Floor" over the Atlantic, why would they respect our new global "Floor"? I would have more faith in the Block hour floor if we would of added Non-Compliance language. Unfortunately, DALPA didn't learn their lesson from 6 years of the company breaking our contract. How the Scope section is being labeled a win in beyond me. It clearly allows the company to fly fewer international flights. |
Originally Posted by nohat
(Post 2253580)
82% is a huge number, I hope DALPA/company do not take it the wrong way, because 82% are not happy with how this went down
Is that something you can prove? I take it as exactly the opposite: 82% liked the deal. "Like" is closer to "happy" than "not happy" (your term). |
Originally Posted by Karnak
(Post 2253655)
82% are not happy?
Is that something you can prove? I take it as exactly the opposite: 82% liked the deal. "Like" is closer to "happy" than "not happy" (your term). |
Originally Posted by Big E 757
(Post 2253660)
I think what he is saying is that although 82% voted in favor, it doesn't mean that all yes voters are "happy" with the way everything "shook" out.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:07 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands