If that is accurate about who voted for/against putting the language into TA format, I wonder if it is specifically because of whom they are representing. For example, blocks 1 and 2 might turn down almost anything without an A fund increase, as they are representing people who could be retiring very soon, and that is the one thing that affects them the most. Instructor and HKG blocks may have very specific interests that do not affect the other blocks, in general (unless they are still attempting to replace line pilot instructors, which affects us all). No clue about block 6.

I'm not making commentary on how people should/should not vote, since obviously the rest of us have no idea of what they are looking at. I am just speculating on why some blocks might vote against when then others voted for. Different blocks=different interests.

 

I'd hope both the CGN and the HKG reps would be NO votes without substantial improvements ($$$ ones) to the FDAs

 

While you're speculating, consider also different philosophies of voting. One Rep may vote FOR advancing the process for the sake of the process (let the membership vote) in spite of the fact he or she doesn't support the product, while another Rep votes FOR advancing the process because he or she likes the product.

Do you think we as a membership are capable of sending a strong, unambiguous message to The Company that a deal is not good enough by voting a TA down? Are we so greedy and impatient that we'll settle for anything, or can we stand up and be counted on to go the distance to get what we've earned?


(And, by the way, that vote tally is accurate. The reasons weren't recorded, but the votes were.)






.

 

It will be good to finally see what the actual product is, to make the decision for ourselves. Hopefully soon, all will be clear, one way or another.

I expect us to hold out for an excellent contract, however, not every single person will be happy with every single section. If we're holding out for that, we'll never have a contract. Here's hoping the contract they negotiated is a quality one.

 

"Current" inflation is startling low.

.2% so far in 2015 (low oil prices are a big factor)
-2014 was .8%
-2013 was 1.5%
-2012 was 2.1%
-2011 was 1.6%
-2010 was 1.6%

If you don't include 2015, the last five years have averaged 1.5%

I know the "norm" is 3%, but using the last 15 years, it's 2.21%.

Consumer Price Index (CPI): 12-Month % Change Data | Ann Arbor District Library (using the bls.gov site, you will get very close to the same numbers, but the numbers involve several links and a lot of leg work. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong using the BLS navigation nightmare.)

Using the BLS inflation calculator, Inflation Calculator: Bureau of Labor Statistics, someone making $100k in 2000 needs to be making 37% more in 2014 to keep up with inflation. In 2000, we were making $180 an hour as a maxed WB Capt. To keep up with a 37% inflation rate our maxed WB Captains needed to be making $246 an hour in 2014. We were/are at $261 for the last 3 years. We are at 45% since 2000 vs inflation of 37%.

If you look at our maxed WB rates in the years since we signed our last non-bridge contract up to 2014 (not including 2015 because it isn't over yet...just like I didn't include it above), a person making $100k in 2006 would need to see an increase of 17% to keep up. Our maxed rate in 2006 was $225. A 17% increase would be $263. This is obviously below our current rate of $261. Keep in mind, we haven't had a raise for 3 years. A rumored 2015 TA raise of 11% puts us at $290. That means we are at 29% vs inflation of 17%.

Am I saying this is good? No. Am I saying this is bad? No. I'm just laying out some numbers.

I may be jacking my numbers up...so feel free to tell me I'm stupid. I'm sure our resident CPI guru, George, will gladly jack me up...but, I'm just trying to get some sort of hard numbers out there.

I realize I'm not talking about time value of money...and that is one factor that needs to be discussed, but I can't do all the work!

 

I sure hope it's not you or me that gets left behind.

 

If they don't change to charmin tissue in the Aoc it's a no vote for sure.

 

Matty,

Current unemployment numbers are low, too, but we all know that they are based on a lie.

Current inflation numbers are based on a lie, too, so they are artificially low.

Food and fuel are not included in the inflation numbers.

More information here:

Why the official inflation rate seems low

 

Dude just stop. You're assuming because someone's pay might exceed the wacky government's definition of inflation that their quality of life or living standard is increasing. You couldn't be more wrong. Worse, by posting this wildly misleading information, you're underselling the crew force's chance for a decent and well deserved raise. It is as if the company came to the negotiating table and said, "why should we give you a raise, your pay rates exceed the cost of inflation!"

 

I know I don't have all the facts yet, but if it turns out to be a 10% pay raise and then 3% a year after and retirement isn't uncapped, I'm absolutely voting NO. To me that would merely be another contract extension. We have continued to have our schedules optimized. We are working harder, more days per month, with more legs, shorter layovers, no weekend layovers, ridiculous deadheads and unreasonable banks. Come on just look around, airlines who haven't made money in a decade are rapidly closing in on us when it comes to compensation.
Plus each year the retirement cap is maintained our retirement becomes less valuable. I used to buy a can of soda for 25 cents and now the same can costs a buck or more. I believe our pay rates are just keeping up with inflation, but we are working much harder than we used too. Simultaneously the value of our retirement continues to decline due to inflation. This contract will last almost another decade (Yes 6 years plus the 2-3 years it always takes to get a new contract), there is a higher probability of increased inflation which will further erode the value our earnings and retirement.
I remember the fact that our careers got extended out to 65. How about another week of vacation for 5 more years of service, how about increasing the multiplier so we can get credit for 30 years instead of 25 towards retirement (then we could at least earn 60% of our high 5) and how about increasing the pay scale out to 20 years so we have higher pay rates for our longer careers. I'm sick of trying to just maintain the status quo, how about some improvements to pay, retirement, vacation and quality of life. I want an exceptional TA and I don't have any problem saying that I want the best pay, benefits and compensation in the business because I think we have earned them.
Going into peak, record profits, pilot shortage, record stock price, rapidly growing executive compensation and bonuses--I guess we probably don't have any leverage do we? I'm sure if we wait another 10 years the company will reward us for our patience and loyalty and we will probably have just as much leverage then too. Can you blame the company for offering us another crappy deal? We have gladly taken every other one they have given us. I really like my job, I don't think the company is evil, I just want what I have earned--A real pay raise, protecting the value of my retirement, and some quality of life improvements. You do what you want, but if the rumors are true I'm absolutely voting NO!!!