![]() |
^^I agree.
|
Originally Posted by busdriver12
(Post 1968593)
^^I agree.
|
Originally Posted by CloudSailor
(Post 1968801)
What do you agree with busdriver12? The Sierra Academy of Aeronautics advertising? Your post just happened to land on a new page and looks funny. ;)
Since this site puts cookies on what you search for (I think), who knows what people think I'm agreeing with? I could be agreeing with Viagra advertisements or Call me Caitlyn commercials, for all I know.:eek: |
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
(Post 1968555)
No argument, I will make my decision and be happy regardless of how the vote turns out. My point is, if we vote no, unity is more important than a yes vote.
If the TA passes then you already have a basic ground work for the next contract. If it's voted down, you already have your marching orders. The NC shows up the next day with a new set of plans and engages immediately. No need to completely derail the train, it just needs to be throttled back up and turned a bit. We would have momentum and some degree of unity. If we work to get everyone on board, as we approach peak we should be able to get a second TA. If we fail to achieve the new goals prior to peak, then after peak, take the time to retool the attack. |
Originally Posted by kwri10s
(Post 1968830)
I agree on your points. However, I am not very pleased that the MEC/Chair response when asked what their plan is if it is voted down, is to take time and regroup. What? Right now they should be polling. This is as smart as we will get on the TA. Everyone is getting as smart on the contract as they've been in years. Find out everyone's top 4 positive improvements and top 4 must fix items (what must be fixed for you to vote yes?). Then ask for the next 3 pet peeves.
If the TA passes then you already have a basic ground work for the next contract. If it's voted down, you already have your marching orders. The NC shows up the next day with a new set of plans and engages immediately. No need to completely derail the train, it just needs to be throttled back up and turned a bit. We would have momentum and some degree of unity. If we work to get everyone on board, as we approach peak we should be able to get a second TA. If we fail to achieve the new goals prior to peak, then after peak, take the time to retool the attack. |
Originally Posted by kwri10s
(Post 1968830)
I agree on your points. However, I am not very pleased that the MEC/Chair response when asked what their plan is if it is voted down, is to take time and regroup. What? Right now they should be polling. This is as smart as we will get on the TA. Everyone is getting as smart on the contract as they've been in years. Find out everyone's top 4 positive improvements and top 4 must fix items (what must be fixed for you to vote yes?). Then ask for the next 3 pet peeves.
If the TA passes then you already have a basic ground work for the next contract. If it's voted down, you already have your marching orders. The NC shows up the next day with a new set of plans and engages immediately. No need to completely derail the train, it just needs to be throttled back up and turned a bit. We would have momentum and some degree of unity. If we work to get everyone on board, as we approach peak we should be able to get a second TA. If we fail to achieve the new goals prior to peak, then after peak, take the time to retool the attack. |
Originally Posted by Rock
(Post 1968848)
...Do you really think all that can be accomplished before Nov/Dec 2015?
If the TA were rejected by 90%, a vastly different set of 'tweaks', than if it is rejected by 51%. But, to your point, why are we rushing to take this out of fear of it taking longer to achieve a true industry-leading TA? This is for us to live with for 10 years! I can wait through peak, which would probably be very ugly (not something I want BTW, nor the company obviously). Why this rush to settle for something substandard just because we won't get a deal quickly if we reject it??? We are playing right into the company's genius timing for this TA. |
Originally Posted by CloudSailor
(Post 1968856)
No, but it is extremely likely the company has some different 'tweaks' to the TA depending on the outcome of a rejected TA (from a very good source).
If were rejected by 90%, a very different tweak, than if it is rejected by 51%. But, to your point, why are we rushing to take this out of fear of it taking longer to achieve a true industry-leading TA? This is for us to live with for 10 years! I can wait through peak, which would probably be very ugly (not something I want BTW, nor the company obviously). Why this rush to settle for something substandard just because we won't get a deal quickly if we reject it??? |
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
(Post 1968861)
...I dont think this deal is substandard. I think we could get improvements, but I think it will be mostly moving the money around, I dont think we will recover the money we lost over the 2 years it will take. You do.
I think their stalling and frustrating tactics have been played masterfully. Very sharp guys who know that this company can afford a true industry-leading CBA, are willing to settle for this TA. Their negotiators are counting on their excellent timing (before September stockholder meeting, and before peak), and the "TVM" fear, for us to settle. |
Originally Posted by CloudSailor
(Post 1968856)
No, but it is extremely likely the company has some different 'tweaks' to the TA depending on the outcome of a rejected TA (from a very good source).
If the TA were rejected by 90%, a vastly different set of 'tweaks', than if it is rejected by 51%. But, to your point, why are we rushing to take this out of fear of it taking longer to achieve a true industry-leading TA? This is for us to live with for 10 years! I can wait through peak, which would probably be very ugly (not something I want BTW, nor the company obviously). Why this rush to settle for something substandard just because we won't get a deal quickly if we reject it??? We are playing right into the company's genius timing for this TA. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:53 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands