Albief15

FWIW, I like stock as a compensation method for a lot of reasons, with one of the biggest being it ties both pilots and management to the same mast, and hopefully what benefits the shareholders benefits the pilots as well. It blew up at UAL with the ESOP, but this is a different business with a different stock history.

That said, there are probably 4200 ideas on the optimum mix of benefits and work rules. We have one choice to make--yes or no--on what we have.

TonyC

I guess you distinguish between belittling and cheap shots.

You may recall, you also were a one-term Rep. Did that make your vote less meaningful, valuable, or valid?

Did you count the number of "YES" votes that came from reps on their first term? In fact, how many of them have been in their seat for less than a year?




I'm astounded that this logic passes for sound. Keeping what we have is NOT a WIN! Furthermore, the TA does NOT keep what we have. What we have now is a 6% year-over-year cap on our costs. What the TA offers is a 10% year-over-year cap AFTER we write a blank check for 18% of "Whatever it costs." There is NO way anybody can guarantee that will amount to only $250 per family -- those numbers are guesses.

Finally, accepting an increase in costs because the pay raise will absorb it is absurd. That sort of defeats the positive effect of the pay raise, doesn't it?



I could go on, but I've got a busy day ahead.






.

FDXAV8R

Please look at thehiddenarrows.com to look at a more detailed and fact based break down on this wholly inadequate TA. Unlike our union it also provides the minority report. Our union YES votes must have been a part of the Iran Nuclear Treaty negotiating team for the U.S.--worst negotiators ever!!! Then they came back and spent over $7 million dollars of our money negotiating this combination of a less than COLA pay raise combined with numerous concessions and think they did a great job. Stop listening to these purple bleeding, company guys on the board and read the TA yourself. Read the letters from the minority "no" voters. Check out thehiddenarrows.com and talk to other crewmembers.

Remember after a decade in bankruptcy the airlines are negotiating deals that will have them catching up with us in pay and benefits and possibly even passing us up. Isn't it clear why the company wants us to sign this decade long deal.

We are not a firing squad, we aren't lined up against the union. Instead we are a membership body that is prepared to hold the union responsible for their inability to deliver. Most of the crew force actually supported them up until they tried to sell us this TA as a win. I'm sorry but you are right I want some more resignations, and recalls if necessary. We need to vote this down decisively and remove some of the daytime cubicle flyers who found it not only easy to vote yes, but worse tried to sell it to us a great deal and replace them with some guys who are a little more in touch with what it means to be a line pilot.

Albief15

By first term, I meant "eager to fight". I certainly was. I was ready to flight after the Age 65 change, and the FDA LOA. You supported both. It was those two issues that pulled me into the message board frenzy and later into running for office.

I think you read a personal attack there that wasn't intended. I have personally thanked Anita for stepping up when I saw her in the AOC. Don't know Dan, but have worked in some capacity with Don and Mike. I wasn't critiquing their drive, I was saying I understood their crossed swords because that is exactly what I wanted to do and did in 08-09. I like these folks...even if Mike is a hard core, way left Democrat and I'm...well....not.

I will re-read health care, but at road show I came away thinking one set of numbers the R&I chairman showed were "worst case". Those were the numbers I was referencing.

I don't think Heathcare will ever be the same again after Obamacare. I don't like it, and I didn't vote for him. I do remember a lot of Obama stickers and "yes we did" stickers in MEC meetings back in 08. We are all paying for that now. Healthcare costs more now if you want a premium plan. Maybe someone better than our team could have extracted a plan that would have improved, but not gone up any in cost after the changes in National Heath care laws. If someone has seen an example of that, I'd like to see it. That's not trying to be snarky...its a genuine request. When I was told we have the best health care in ALPA, I believed it. When told premiums were rising everywhere, I also believed it. I cannot say I've done any outside research on heath care, however, so if there are some experts I'm interested.

Raptor

I don't think it must come down to "force". There IS leverage, though to make another pass at TA 2. What I bet is that the original pilot desire to improve retirement needs to be reviewed as it was originally sent to the NC to negotiate.

Fixing A plan by trading new hires to a robust B plan is something I've heard to be a desire of a lot of folks I've talked to. I know we didn't want to split the crew force, but the A plan "death" killed this TA for me and many others. If it's a line in the sand for the company, it's also a line in the sand for many of us.

I bet the new TA will be very similar to this with some modifications that will make it pass. We don't have to reinvent the wheel. Fix a couple of things and it will sail through a second time.

FDXAV8R

By overwhelming voting for and publicly selling this TA as industry leading the union has really empowered the company and crippled the crew force, because it establishes the baseline for improvements moving forward. The fact we have publicly stated things like the A fund can't be saved, that a less than cost of living pay raise is acceptable, and we are willing to accept concessions ensures we will lose work rules, achieve only modest gains in pay from here and can probably thank our union for ensuring our A fund's value is not protected--UNLESS WE VOTE THIS DOWN DECISIVELY!!! Then I do believe a lot of the YES voting daytime cubicle flyers have to go.

For all of you who want me to be kinder, gentler, and more professional in the way I address the people who just spent over $7 million of our money only to discover they screwed us--I didn't like the "Crying Game" and I ain't happy about this TA. Still I think you have a valid point and I'm working on my anger management and will try to be nicer in future posts about the daytime cubicle flyers that F*CKED us.

pinseeker

How much do you have to save a year for 25 years to get an annuity of 130k to last for a minimum of 10 years? Now bump that up to 150k.

Yeah, let's sell out the new hires. In ten years I'm sure they won't do the same to us.

Raptor

That may be, but I've talked to a LOT of people. The retirement solution as it is now in the TA is unacceptable. The NC says due to FAS rules new hires on improved A plan is unacceptable to the company. If that is all true, from a hundred or so comments I've received, people are now willing to talk about splitting new hires off if that's the only way forward with an improved A plan. That frankly seems to be more important to many people, myself included.

Remember how old our polling is. The MEC and NC are running off of data and information that are years old. Frankly, we should have polled the pilots once again to see what our positions were with knowledge of supposed company lines in the sand.

The NC in webcast 1 said themselves that we are the ONLY ALPA carrier accepting new hires on an A plan. Removing that and giving them a hellava B plan with cash over cap would make sense. At the very least that's what new polling would possibly show. I bet that's how it would turn out based on all the contacts I've made about this and other issues. If I were a 40 year old new hire and knew I had an effectively static A plan that is 50% replacement value today, approximately 35% in 2021, and less than 20% in 2030....and I could get a great B plan, I know what I would choose.

We are also making a somewhat false argument that our goal was to keep new hires on the A plan. That's not what I recall from our negotiating pillars. It was that AND to improve it. If it's not improved and the A plan dies a slow death, it's not logical to call succeeding in one part a win. Both parts had to be met to call the pillar accomplished and that wasn't done.

From Chairman's message 9/25:
Judging by the questions and concerns voiced at the various TA presentations and through other interactions, it is clear that the most controversial aspect of the agreement is the retirement section. That is not a surprise to me, as that was the most contentious of the issues that your elected representatives have struggled with over the last couple of years. Some have suggested that we can reengage on this issue separately in the aftermath of a successful TA vote. That may or may not be the case. Were we to develop a retirement position that provides value to the company as well as creates a better outcome for us, then such post-TA bargaining might be possible. There are potential retirement solutions that could accomplish this, but so far they have been elusive, as the MEC did not want to engage in a public retirement debate during late-stage bargaining. To be clear, without creating value for the company as well as improving our position, I can see little likelihood to engage in such bargaining once the TA is accepted.

He's telling us there will be no retirement LOA unless the company can come out ahead in it. So, don't base your vote on the TA thinking the pipe dream that retirement will improve later on. Pass this TA and the A plan will be frozen or gone on the next TA.

Let's take the hard decisions NOW and fix it....one way or another. Half the crew force will retire under this poor compromise retirement as we push the ball down the field. Vote no, repoll, do what's needed about retirement with the new information, and resubmit a TA which will pass.

The Chairman also says:
One thing has become very clear to me. Unity matters a great deal. In two cases, we demonstrated unity around specific issues. We stood together in opposition to PBS, and we stood together in opposition to a new-hire retirement carve-out. In both cases, we prevailed. Sadly, on our overall retirement position we were unable to formulate a unifying position. If we are to achieve a better outcome in the future we will need to find solutions that create unity vice division.

He admits the position isn't unifying. He says the one part is accomplished, no new hire carve out, but I don't think he admits how the rest of the negotiating pillar was critical in improving too.

Vote no and help fulfill his vision of taking us to a unified position. If this passes, we have 10 years and 50% retirement under a divisive solution that I don't believe we would have accepted as a pilot group if we were re-polled.

pinseeker

Again, our A-plan has a yearly contribution value. What do you think that value is? Once you come up with that value, how much of a B-plan would we need to match our combined plans?

Can you answer the question or are you going to continue to avoid it?

globalflair

Vote no and help fulfill his vision of taking us to a unified position.

HERE WE GO…..an expert telling me how to vote. Do your have a free cell phone to go with that?