FDXLAG

Tony your idiotic hypothetical where company a has one employee that gets 100/hour and company b has 2 employees at 80/hr I answered. You didn't like my answer. Company B is the one to work for because you either get Christmas or Thanksgiving off. Your Hypothetical would be great if American had one WB Pilot flying triples at the higher rate. They don't, they have 10% of their WB Captains flying at a higher rate and 90% flying at a lower rate. You refuse to name a company that pays a higher pay rate on average for all WB captains. You point out that American has a higher rate, and I point out our A 380 rate is higher yet. The higher rate means crap unless enough guys are getting it. My kids ignore facts they cant dispute too, and then blame me when they cant come up with an argument.

I think you are attempting to use colorful language in an attempt to sell a no vote. I'm not buying it.

CloudSailor

I think I saw FDXLAG arguing with someone on Jetflyers (I am guessing it's him), as he was also calling the other guy, or new hires who disagreed with him, idiots. Just like he calls your hypothetical idiotic. Must be the same guy...

In any event, I think you were very clear when opening this thread, and although I have disagreed with you on many topics, your analysis and questioning do not upset my perspective. Your thread is about the way this is being presented, by the same NC who kindly encourages us to vote "yes".

Now, I can understand LEC reps, for/against the TA, saying they believe we should vote one way or another. But to receive an official comm from our NC, encouraging us to vote yes, represents a clear conflict of interest. That email should be cause enough for one to closely examine the TA itself. We will work under that language, not what's on APC, nor Jetflyers, nor the videos, nor roadshows.

This TA should stand/fall of its own accord and merit. But, this is unfortunately how it works on an ALPA property. The presentation is one-sided. I don't think anyone can argue that. I give our MEC Chairman full credit for allowing the vote for the presentation of the minority report. And for all the gains that this NC brought us, which I think they SHOULD be proud of, the concessions and company gained efficiencies have not been presented properly. The $1.67B is repeated over and over and over, but the value of the gained efficiencies is nowhere to be found. Many of our pilots have asked for this info, including Block 1 Rep DR, and that information will not be shared by the NC. The concessions have been glossed over with subjective statements such as 'smart give', and leaps and bounds, etc... This is not an attack on those of you voting in favor, this is a call for you to open your eyes to this lopsided presentation, and how it would be a huge disservice to yourself and your profession, to vote without studying the actual document itself.

As I've said in the past, I have a sore spot with this as I was on an ALPA property that was SOLD PBS by the NC and MEC. The roadshows, the videos, the emails, all eerily familiar to what we have here today. And once that POS TA passed, and PBS was fully on property, the damage was done. Pilots there regretted not studying the fine print more closely, they regretted vesting their entire decision making process on what they were told by their elected reps, they regretted believing that voting in favor, and in agreement with the NC, was going to improve their QOL. It was a complete disaster, for junior and senior alike. Maybe that experience has made me much more cynical and has me reading through this TA in a way that only anticipates the worst from the company lawyers. But, I feel better prepared that way.

busdriver12

I surely hope, if this TA passes, that if the SLRWG doesn't end up with a product that they like, and like a lot, that they shelve it. I also hope that it comes to us to choose or reject, before it is permanent.


I see that, and I feel your pain. There is a lot of well deserved cynicism in this crew force.

CloudSailor

I agree busdriver12. I think if it weren't for 4a2b, and the latest CRS interpretations of the CBA, this TA would sail through.

BTW, nice multi-quoting! A pro on here.

TheBaron Deux

Tony,
You complain that the NC has been misleading by comparing our top 15 year pay rate to "their" 12 year pay rates. Would it ever have been a fair comparison for people to look at our A-380 rates since we didn't have the airplanes? You want us to make comparisons that have no basis in reality. There are no (as in zero) 12 year wide body captains at AA...who cares what the pay scale for a nonexistent position is? How much do they pay their rocket powered unicorn drivers? The TA has industry leading pay because at every year during a realistic career, you will have a higher rate at FedEx.

CloudSailor

Good point Deux, but although AA might not have 12 year WB CA's today, they might in the next 10-15 years. Have you seen their retirement schedule?

TonyC

That's just it, Leo. I didn't ask you which company you'd rather work for based on vacation potential. I asked which company had the highest pay rate. It's The Company's job to delay, distract, and diminish expectations. I believe they have a good friend in you.






.

FDXLAG

Your company was make believe, of course 100 is more than 80. In the real world we measure rates as we see them. You still refuse to answer the question who has a higher pay rate. American WB captains or FDX WB captains?

You are the one engaging in subterfuge, not the MEC and not me.

CloudSailor

Are you kidding LAG?

Here are the first two paragraphs in the opening post for the thread:

"What constitutes "Industry Leading"?

Our TA Pay Rates are described by our Negotiating Committee Chairman as "Industry Leading." I invite you to examine those rates and justify the characterization."

If our NC Chair had said, "our AVERAGE pay rates are industry leading". Or, "for the most part, our pay rates are industry leading, when considering the amount of WB positions we have, or when considering XYZ", he would have been correct, and this thread would be meaningless. But, he didn't. He characterizes our pay rates as industry leading, period. The whole point of this thread is that you should open your eyes to the one-sided presentation of the roadshows, videos, etc...

BTW, this whole comparison to be a few bucks ahead of a previously BANKRUPT PAX carrier, that doesn't fly night-hub turns, nor carries HAZMAT, as a point of comparison to the success of our TA, is ridiculous to begin with.

FDXLAG

So I guess you agree our A 380 rate kicks Americans ass.

You can't have it both ways either you measure the top pay rate or you measure by what guys actually make.

It is not important what Tony put in the ground rules for his debate. We are debating this TA and whether it is industry leading. Tony does not get to define the term industry leading into his narrow view and call anyone who disagrees a liar.