A-380/777 payrate
09-27-2015 | 05:48 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,064
Likes: 37
From: 767 Captain
09-27-2015 | 06:22 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 4,304
Likes: 0
From: MD-11 Captain
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?
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?
09-27-2015 | 06:53 AM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,756
Likes: 0
"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.
Well, he does add a little bit of entertainment value.
Like when he says the A380 rates were just a "misunderstanding" during negotiations.
09-27-2015 | 10:13 AM
#14
Line Holder
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,357
Likes: 133
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!
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 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.
09-27-2015 | 03:14 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 0
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....
Sigh....
09-27-2015 | 06:22 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 296
Likes: 0
09-27-2015 | 06:34 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,756
Likes: 0
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!
09-27-2015 | 07:22 PM
#20
Part Time Employee
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,918
Likes: 0
From: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
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!
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!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
