Stan446

Not even close to the truth.

Hacker15e

Meaning, "yes" voters "didn't get the TA they wanted" because the TA didn't pass. "No" voters "didn't get the TA they wanted" in the TA itself, so they voted no.

Thus, nobody got the TA they wanted.

JustInFacts

No one is suggesting an illegal job action.

You do realize that every time a pilot sells back vacation, the company collects data.

Every time the company worsens pairings and they still get picked up out of open time, the company collects data.

Every time pilots don't use or make up sick, the compamy gathers data.

Every time a pilot gets bumped for training and then picks up trips, the company collects data.

Every time a pilot refuses to protect min days off, the company collects data.

Every time a pilot reduces their vacation footprint in the SLG to make more days available for work, the company collects data.


All of this data is then used to argue against us in negotiations. They use this data to prove that we are happy with the status quo, and in fact, are more than willing to work more under the same rules.

DLax85

Spot on! And precisely why both the YES and the NO voters need to understand it will take truly listening to each other, and then binding together, to get a TA which satisfies both groups.

Stop looking inward with malice. Look directly at the company. After the TA was voted down, they are certainly looking directly at us. All of Us!

The only way to successfully move forward is TOGETHER.

In Transparency, Integrity, and Unity (for Everyone),
DLax

0617Ld

The moment the current NC agreed to split the retirement unity went right out the door. The only way to bring back any sort of unity is for them “THE NC” to openly come out and say they will not bring a TA to the pilots that has two separate retirement packages. If they can’t do that let’s get a new NC.

kwri10s

Very true. If NC/Company want to start laying the groundwork for change down the road how about putting the scope payments into a MBCBP. That way we can go ahead and get IRS approval for the plan and we can "see" real time what kind of gains the plan will achieve over multiple years. I don't want to pay 30% tax on it, let it go to work tax differed. Go bigger and let pilots also put end of year vacation sell back and DSB overflow into the same MBCBP and we have the beginning of a third leg of a retirement chair. Go for broke and get COC on TA2.0 that flows into the MBCBP and we have the makings of some real improvements to our total retirement package without splitting the SL. Also we will have actual data to let the crew force decide how to direct their retirement in the future. Not pie in the sky theories.

opt0712

From the latest NC update:

"On Wednesday, the Company responded to our term sheet supposal and expressed frustration over the magnitude of the economic portion."

Really? Kinda like us being frustrated they've been dragging their feet for 3 years? What year are they living in where they act surprised the total compensation associated with being an airline pilot has increased?

The company has no one to blame but themselves. They could have saved so much money getting a contract at the amendable date. Sorry, none of us are taking less.

Looking forward to seeing what has them all so "frustrated."

Yuko

It struck me as interesting the line in the latest NC email that stated the company’s feeling

“the Company responded to our term sheet supposal and expressed frustration over the magnitude of the economic portion.”

Frustration is a feeling but yet when the pilot force shows similar feeling we are reminded this is a business deal.

Another noteworthy area existed in section 1 supposal:

”we remain steadfast that the Company must translate their previous assurances of good faith into clear and enforceable language”

Again, I am reminded that this is a business deal and assurances do not hold legal enforceable weight necessary if a violation occurs. It seems that the NC is seeing doubt in those assurances.