Originally Posted by Bluedriver

That's easy, JB box meals. Gross.

Originally Posted by DontCallMeCindy

My position is neither fear nor emotion-based in any way shape or form. My position as a "yes" voter is based on a purely objective risk assessment of historical mediated re-negotiation timelines (in highly favorable environments), historical airline business cycle timelines, and US economic history.

Given a comprehensive assessment of the risk matrix, the value of the deal on the table, and the absolute lack of scope/rules in the existing PEA/FSM, my position is that only an emotional person would vote no on this.

Feel free to show me your math. Here's a gross generalization of mine:

Tn(xi) = Re-negotiation period length in months (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pn(xi) = Probability of re-negotiation length (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pr(xi) = Probability of recession condition in month (x), for x = 1 to 120

Po(xi) = Probability of oil price requiring capacity reduction in month (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pa(xi) = Probability of age 67 passage in month (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pm(xi) = Probability of merger or acquisition during month (x) for x = 1 to 120

For each value of x between 1 and 120 months, plot a cumulative distribution of the sum of Tn(xi) * P(xi) for each of the above probability classes, attempting to use probability values based on historical data points.

Overlaid on the same cumulative probability distribution chart, plot the cumulative running loss of post-tax compensation resulting from a "no" vote.

If you had truly simulated the consequences of a "no" vote from a purely unemotional financial risk management perspective/model (as I obviously have), you wouldn't be accusing others of being "emotional" for voting "yes." Because a "yes" vote is the only rational result I can see, even if you assume extremely generous re-negotiation times and risk probabilities.

I have not heard any compelling arguments from you (or any no voting evangelist) that is backed up with any math, historical facts, or really any data other than "leverage, blah blah--fleet plan, blah blah."

Show me your math--prove to me how a "no" vote will recover me even a penny more of net compensation, after accounting for all of the very REAL probabilities I have listed above.

Originally Posted by DontCallMeCindy

My position is neither fear nor emotion-based in any way shape or form. My position as a "yes" voter is based on a purely objective risk assessment of historical mediated re-negotiation timelines (in highly favorable environments), historical airline business cycle timelines, and US economic history.

Given a comprehensive assessment of the risk matrix, the value of the deal on the table, and the absolute lack of scope/rules in the existing PEA/FSM, my position is that only an emotional person would vote no on this.

Feel free to show me your math. Here's a gross generalization of mine:

Tn(xi) = Re-negotiation period length in months (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pn(xi) = Probability of re-negotiation length (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pr(xi) = Probability of recession condition in month (x), for x = 1 to 120

Po(xi) = Probability of oil price requiring capacity reduction in month (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pa(xi) = Probability of age 67 passage in month (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pm(xi) = Probability of merger or acquisition during month (x) for x = 1 to 120

For each value of x between 1 and 120 months, plot a cumulative distribution of the sum of Tn(xi) * P(xi) for each of the above probability classes, attempting to use probability values based on historical data points.

Overlaid on the same cumulative probability distribution chart, plot the cumulative running loss of post-tax compensation resulting from a "no" vote.

If you had truly simulated the consequences of a "no" vote from a purely unemotional financial risk management perspective/model (as I obviously have), you wouldn't be accusing others of being "emotional" for voting "yes." Because a "yes" vote is the only rational result I can see, even if you assume extremely generous re-negotiation times and risk probabilities.

I have not heard any compelling arguments from you (or any no voting evangelist) that is backed up with any math, historical facts, or really any data other than "leverage, blah blah--fleet plan, blah blah."

Show me your math--prove to me how a "no" vote will recover me even a penny more of net compensation, after accounting for all of the very REAL probabilities I have listed above.

Originally Posted by DontCallMeCindy

My position is neither fear nor emotion-based in any way shape or form. My position as a "yes" voter is based on a purely objective risk assessment of historical mediated re-negotiation timelines (in highly favorable environments), historical airline business cycle timelines, and US economic history.

Given a comprehensive assessment of the risk matrix, the value of the deal on the table, and the absolute lack of scope/rules in the existing PEA/FSM, my position is that only an emotional person would vote no on this.

Feel free to show me your math. Here's a gross generalization of mine:

Tn(xi) = Re-negotiation period length in months (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pn(xi) = Probability of re-negotiation length (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pr(xi) = Probability of recession condition in month (x), for x = 1 to 120

Po(xi) = Probability of oil price requiring capacity reduction in month (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pa(xi) = Probability of age 67 passage in month (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pm(xi) = Probability of merger or acquisition during month (x) for x = 1 to 120

For each value of x between 1 and 120 months, plot a cumulative distribution of the sum of Tn(xi) * P(xi) for each of the above probability classes, attempting to use probability values based on historical data points.

Overlaid on the same cumulative probability distribution chart, plot the cumulative running loss of post-tax compensation resulting from a "no" vote.

If you had truly simulated the consequences of a "no" vote from a purely unemotional financial risk management perspective/model (as I obviously have), you wouldn't be accusing others of being "emotional" for voting "yes." Because a "yes" vote is the only rational result I can see, even if you assume extremely generous re-negotiation times and risk probabilities.

I have not heard any compelling arguments from you (or any no voting evangelist) that is backed up with any math, historical facts, or really any data other than "leverage, blah blah--fleet plan, blah blah."

Show me your math--prove to me how a "no" vote will recover me even a penny more of net compensation, after accounting for all of the very REAL probabilities I have listed above.

Originally Posted by CaptCoolHand

I’m interested to hear what we got (if it passes) you are glad you didn’t get?

Originally Posted by hyperboy

AND.....At least we have the finest PET POLICY in the industry. Until we get protections from Merger and Scope...Looks like Fido and Rover are much safer than we are....for now?

Originally Posted by PasserOGas

Have you considered what our next round of negotiations looks like with a yes vote? Do all the math you want on this one. We will have shown we are willing to work for less, and given up any say on payrates for future aircraft. What cards will we have given the NC when in they are sitting across from Hyperboy at the negotiating table?

Please show your math.

Originally Posted by Bluedriver

Wait, I thought JB wasn't for sale? Organic growth?

Originally Posted by hyperboy

FUNNY POG! Sorry your life is sad that you must make false accusations about me. You checked out, have done nothing for the cause, and now you complain about the actions of others without looking at yourself in the mirror.

Survey represents all not just you. Vote accordingly.

Originally Posted by BeatNavy

I know I’m stating the obvious, but the MEC also “represents all,” and 5 of them voted no. A no vote, or being displeased with this TA, is not a jab at the NC, MEC, ALPA, etc. It also does not mean that people who vote no, or even those who vote yes who don’t like this TA, don’t go to meetings, read union emails, volunteer for ALPA, and stay informed. Not sure if it’s just a personal thing between you and POG, but plenty of people who do put a lot of time and effort into ALPA and this pilot group do not like this TA.