|
Originally Posted by Viper446
(Post 1979996)
Policy, Just vote. One way or another.
|
Is this guy even a pilot?
He certainly doesn't write like one!*?
I recommend that we ignore this "PolicyWonk" guy. He's almost certainly one of the previous basement dwelling High School kids posting from his parents basement after watching a few aviation movies. Has he been previously banned under other names and now accusing others of the same tactic? If I thought there was any chance he was actually a pilot, I'd be inclined to ask him some ATP questions to see if he had any idea what I was talking about. I wonder how he found out about our proposed A380 pay rates? He suddenly appears a few days before TA voting opens? Mods ... this guy doesn't add anything to the conversation, is there any way to ban him? :eek: |
"Mods ... this guy doesn't add anything to the conversation, is there any way to ban him?"
Well, he does add a little bit of entertainment value. Like when he says the A380 rates were just a "misunderstanding" during negotiations. |
Maybe the arbitrator took into account that back in 2007 the retirement age changed so everyone at the top got five more years, plenty of money to help offset a cola. Then everyone one else will have to wait for the next contract. Then again he probably does not care what happened in the past!
Originally Posted by PolicyWonk
(Post 1979953)
I would like to know how much we have saved the company by virtue of flying the 777 at MD-11 rates instead of A-380 rates.
I understand that there were misunderstandings during negotiations in 2006. I'm not pointing fingers. I'm glad to know how much the TA wll cost, compared to the stasis imposed by an impartial arbitrator on this issue. But I'd also like two other numbers, and I think the mediator should also know them if he doesn't already. If he doesn't, that's our fault. How much more will this contract cost if we deduct what we lost on the A-380/777 payrates misunderstanding? Past tense. And how much will we lose on this misunderstanding, going forward? Again, compared to how we are benefiting by the topline numbers that I deem reliable. I'm not contesting that methodology, but then, I'm nearly ignorant of that series of formulation. Let's try a thought experiment. Try to envisage yourself nine years ago deliberating on that TA? Regardless of how you voted, if there were only two payscales (the lower two), would you have voted in the affirmative? If there was no A-380 payrate, would you have contented yourself with an A-plan basis of 260? Would it have passed? I think not. It would have required at least 300. Then. Nevermind the interim profligate creation of currency. I'd like to see those two numbers presented to us. One looking backwards. One looking forwards. The A-380 misunderstanding. I think it will help the mediator see things our way. 260 basis was based on a misunderstanding. Nine years ago. Please, please, don't misinterpret this as advocacy of a third payrate. That would delay a potentially quick remedy. |
I know this ship sailed a long time ago. Why does the 777 pay the same rate as the small Airbus? Why does the 757 pay the same as the 727 although it carries more cargo, more efficient to operate, common type with 767, and has one less crew member.
Sigh.... |
Wonder why Mr Policywonk started his 57 threads and then left the building? Wants to start a discussion, or wants to troll?
|
Originally Posted by busdriver12
(Post 1980447)
Wonder why Mr Policywonk started his 57 threads and then left the building? Wants to start a discussion, or wants to troll?
|
Originally Posted by busdriver12
(Post 1980447)
Wonder why Mr Policywonk started his 57 threads and then left the building? Wants to start a discussion, or wants to troll?
|
Originally Posted by Viper446
(Post 1980455)
I'll start it up again. Pg, 2. Table of contents. I'm not happy how the contents were arranged. We should fight this! :):):)
But I agree, it should have been revised!! I actually don't want to **** anyone off. I just am aggravated by trolls. And that fact that I couldn't put in a smiley face, because we are limited to three images, and you took them all! |
Originally Posted by busdriver12
(Post 1980465)
Wait a minute, they didn't revise this.....
But I agree, it should have been revised!! I actually don't want to **** anyone off. I just am aggravated by trolls. And that fact that I couldn't put in a smiley face, because we are limited to three images, and you took them all! |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:12 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands