kronan

Healthcare won't bring the company to the table.

It's expensive, and company wants to share a bit more of the pain with us, but it's still fewer $$ than the pay raises associated with the TA.

Anthrax

[QUOTE=Rock;1986234]Complete guess on my part, but I know the company wants to renegotiate our retirement.

I'm dismayed all too often to be unionized with such low common denominators. I can only hope that we've enough common sense to see the uneven and concessionary nature of this contract.

BlackKnight

Now that's funny.

Sad, though, that it's drawn from similarities to the new TA.

RedeyeAV8r

Of Course the Company would love to renegotiate our Retirement.

Do you really think they want to improve it for us?

They know this is a emotional issue within the Pilot ranks.


So let's assume as soon as this TA Passes, the Company immediately comes to ALPA and says "Hey lets talk about retirement"
Just a rhetorical question to you. (It would be negotiations after all, even outside of Section 6.)

Do you think their opener would be We want to raise the Cap on the A-plan and Change the multiplier.

They will want something. maybe like "Hey we will discuss giving you a
Temporary A-plan Bump but we have this new Computerized Program for Monthly Bidding we would like to implement.

Or "We have received approval for the TNT deal but we need to explore a divestment of our Intra European flying. CGN will have to close as our TNT subsidiary will take over. We need relief on Move packages home and no more Excess Bids. Oh wait we already changed that

iarapilot

[QUOTE=Anthrax;1986254]
Pretty freakin amazing, isnt it?! The comments I got from guys I flew with when I got here in 97 had me saying to myself that this is going to be a long career.

Rock

You don't think the company wants to renegotiate our retirement?

Rock

Redeye, it sounds like you think our prospects in future negotiations are tenuous at best. On that, we certainly agree.

CAVOK84

It is becoming extremely tedious receiving these increasingly desperate emails asserting that the only way a pilot would vote No is if he had been brainwashed. K.T.s letter is not different in that regard; it betrays a frantic concern that their 'product' is being recognized for what it is... No, it's not horrible when you compare it to Delta's failed TA (why would you want to compare it to that?), but it certainly is no victory-- and not even close to warranting a Yes vote from me.

It also is a common theme for these guys to associate irrational thought and emotion with any talk of No votes. We get the same accusatory, tiresome, pedantic emails with the same rehearsed changes that are slight improvements as if these alone are justification of a 6+ year TA-- and in so doing insult their fellow MEC reps as well as a substantial portion of the pilot group.

I also take exception to these guys holding me hostage with their ominous forecast of union failure and hardship should the TA fail. Whether this is intended or not, it comes across as either an embellishment which undermines the very principle of pilot ratification, or a petty threat, their own little punishment should the membership fail to 'control their emotions'. If he did not intend it this way then his entire letter should have been much more carefully written.

I have quite a long time before I hit 65, been here for 5 years, and I believe that ratifying a TA of this quality, given our current circumstances (e.g good economy, healthy company, short on pilots), will set the precedent for what I can expect for the next 35 years. Will it continue to be worth the hub-turns? Or will it just be another major airline that just happens to be profitable, yet completely worse due to the majority night flying and solitary environment

Also, with such an important decision at hand- the trite slogan "My NC still speaks for me" is such an empty sentiment. I get force-fed this garbage from the leadership while they accuse the No voters of selling...

RedeyeAV8r

Rock, of course future negotiations will be tenuous if this is voted down. They were tenuous before the NC agreed on this TA. Negotiations are always tenuous, especially if we want improvements.

I have no delusions that if this is voted down that things won't heat up
again as we try for TA part II.

But for a Block Rep to suggest or communicate that we should vote this in and then expect that ALPA will continue to improve the Retirement section outside of Section 6 is Ludicrous. Why would Management do that? They have a 6 year deal if this passes?

I won't attempt to sway you or anyone's vote. Vote how you see fit.
I just hope you vote based on what is written in the TA. If you think this is Good enough, Vote in favor of it.

But, for anyone who expects a further Negotiated improvements after this TA is passed (i.e. outside of section 6) is plain naive.

Rock

Red eye, I agree with you. But where we probably don't agree is my contention that the best negotiating environment we will ever have was three months ago. That's why I file the idea that we'll gain significant improvements outside of section 6 negotiations in the same place I file the idea we'll gain significant improvements in subsequent section 6 negotiations. And that is exactly why I will follow your suggestion to base my vote on what is written in the TA, and not on what I hope might get written into the TA.