It's so simple
06-18-2012 | 12:10 PM
#132
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Bush said he wouldn't allow it, and it didn't happen. Throw in all the rules you want, if a President says it in public, like the quote I found Carl, it won't happen. His buddies in Congress can put a stop to it too. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Too big to fail, too big to strike.
It's one thing for a President to say it but the rules are the rules and they can only stop it for 60 days. After that, it takes an act of congress
and there is a reason that is used as a punchline.
06-18-2012 | 02:23 PM
#133
Banned
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
bush said he wouldn't allow it, and it didn't happen. Throw in all the rules you want, if a president says it in public, like the quote i found carl, it won't happen. His buddies in congress can put a stop to it too. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Too big to fail, too big to strike.
06-18-2012 | 03:32 PM
#134
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,642
Likes: 0
From: right for a long, long time
Shiz... you and I do not have to go down the road of posting like a 50 year old on FPL with a helmet fire.
You and I despite being on the opposing sides of this TA are far better able to have an open and honest conversation about this TA and I welcome it. FWIW, the right way for someone to handle opposing data is to post their own. No commentary needed. Just the numbers and the assumptions they're based on. Slow actually does this pretty well... at times. It allows for a conversation and sharing of info and molding assumptions.
But remember we're the buyers, they're the sellers, running numbers off places like airlinefinancials.com or BTS/SEC data is the nearest thing we have to consumer reports.
That's what I am doing. I don't like the 325 number but beyond that I'm stress testing this TA and in this case trying to answer the questions on this thread as to whether this TA is cost neutral or not? That's where I added in the talk about the CR2 leases because if you factor in what they save there and our undeniable pay increases I think you could make a case that it is possible to make this cost neutral based on the most detrimental assumptions that this TA allows.
Is it cost neutral for us? Not in terms of pay, but staffing and outsourcing issues added in I don't think it is neutral, I think it's less. That's imho looking at the same numbers in the same TA and basing that off the trajectory the jumbo RJs are on given the lack of a hull count minimum for mainline aircraft.
wce.
WDE back at ya. We will have to agree to disagree on how numbers are derived. (I think I'm right though!
)
06-18-2012 | 04:19 PM
#135
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
If you meant that, then yes, you are correct.
Last chance offer! It must go now!! There may never be another!
06-18-2012 | 04:48 PM
#136
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,642
Likes: 0
From: right for a long, long time
06-18-2012 | 04:59 PM
#138
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,642
Likes: 0
From: right for a long, long time
06-18-2012 | 05:18 PM
#140
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
FTB, according to my rep, at the meeting Linda Puchala attended, she said that many pilot groups thought they were operating from a position of strength because of the inertia of congress and their apparent inability to act decisively. She said, put that thought out of your head. Legislation putting Delta pilots back to work has already been written and is waiting to put us back to work in the event the NMB path takes us that far.
That is not to say we can't effectively reduce revenue to the extent that it becomes cheaper for the company to pay us v. accept the reduced revenue and reduced profit on that revenue.
Bottom line, it isn't about striking. It is about controlling revenue.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
