FrankTheTank

But Kronan’s entire argument is built on the basis of the accuracy of this garbage modeler. And then just to make the rainbows brighter, a bunch of “to be negotiated” provisions..

FastBurner

The ninth grade level modeler shows "possibilities" rather than "guarantees." The lowest "guarantee" reflected in the 2% earnings "floor" from the modeler DOES NOT benefit anyone until year 26.

Just updated a database regarding seniority (as of today):
- 2472 Capt / 2554 FO
- CAPT
-- The bottom Captain (sen 4176) has 1693 FO's above
-- @ 90th Capt % (Sen 3035); there are 798 FO's above
-- @ 80th (Sen 2521); 534 FO's above
-- @ 70th (2063); 326
-- @ 60th (1701); 212
-- @ 50th (1380); 138
- FO
-- The senior FO (Sen 29) has 2445 Capt below
-- @ 10% (Sen 1749); has 953 Capt below
-- @ 20% (2422); 538
-- @ 30% (2912); 306
-- @ 40% (3350); 124
-- @ 50% (3691); 38

IF the VB (now "stabilized") plan needs "pancakes" - and the only way to increase the stack is through upgrade - there could be a very large swap in positions.

Fdxlag2

And for that we lose PGBC coverage. Which is nice.

FDX1

When APC is your primary source of information, inevitably you produce false information for the other angry 12.

You are 100% wrong, about the PBGC coverage. All of the plan information put out by the Union has stated that that the plan is a Pension Plan and IS covered by the PBGC. You will find this information on the ALPA website under "Retirement Education".

But don't let the facts get in the way of spreading inaccurate information to your fellow pilots. Great Job!

Fdxlag2

What don’t you ask someone in the union what the PBGC says about covering multiple plans at the same company.

Nightflyer

What the union puts out is not believable.

They are the same people who said "lie flat seats" would not hurt us.

They were wrong then, and many other times.

Are you going to trust them with your retirement?

I am not.

Nightflyer

How many times have we lost grievances because the union lawyers thought the language meant one thing, and the company said it meant another?

This from the same union leadership who promised us that they would "tighten the language" in this contract?

Remember when we switched from FPA to ALPA and they promised, 1) we would have better lawyers and better contracts? (How is that working out for us?) and 2) "deep pockets" that we could use in contract negotiations? (Hmmm, why didn't we use those deep pockets last time around?)

Remember how the union asked for a longer contract than the company offered, so they could save more money for negotiations?

Hmmm, now they have spent ONE MILLION DOLLARS on nonsense, and come negotiations, we will be short of money again.

The membership needs to wake up and demand answers from the people in charge, and yes, perhaps some reps need to be replaced.

There should be term limits for union officers, as some gravitate to those jobs so they don't have to actually fly for a living.

As far as the 12 angry men comments, perhaps if the union allowed people with different opinions to speak at union meetings, we would not have to vent our frustrations here.

busdriver12

I'd say Nightflyer got it all right.

FrankTheTank

Here here, Nightflyer

Freighthumper

Is this what you meant to write?

-- The bottom Captain (sen 4176) has 693 FO's above

We don’t have almost 6000 pilots.