Search
Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

It's so simple

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-15-2012, 09:06 PM
  #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 302
Default It's so simple

A NO vote is a NO brainer in my opinion.

This isn't flame bait or anything. Why would you vote in a contract that has concessions? There are many concessions in this contract. The time for concessions is over, or so I thought. Why would you vote in a contract where the work rules actually reduce our pilot group? Or a contract that farms out more RJ's? The most blatant concession is a 7th short call. DALPA can't put a spin on that one!

You can sit here and argue the various pros/cons all day, but the bottom line to be is very simple. There are concessions in this contract. I thought a contract was about improving things.
groundstop is offline  
Old 06-15-2012, 09:58 PM
  #2  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
Default

Originally Posted by groundstop View Post
A NO vote is a NO brainer in my opinion.

This isn't flame bait or anything. Why would you vote in a contract that has concessions? There are many concessions in this contract. The time for concessions is over, or so I thought. Why would you vote in a contract where the work rules actually reduce our pilot group? Or a contract that farms out more RJ's? The most blatant concession is a 7th short call. DALPA can't put a spin on that one!

You can sit here and argue the various pros/cons all day, but the bottom line to be is very simple. There are concessions in this contract. I thought a contract was about improving things.
You mean you're not using your brain if you vote NO? Precisely! All you have are hunches and guesses as to what will happen next. Worried about a 7th short call? Bid something else. Maybe the 717 would give you a line? Oh wait, you don't really want that.... Remember, subtract 200 RJs sooner to take away capacity to be covered by 70 76 seaters and 88 717s. Then throw in a ratio that favors mainline by an extra 6%, which is significant. Ah heck, we can ask for a 28% DOS pay raise in a few years. No biggie.
Bill Lumberg is offline  
Old 06-15-2012, 11:48 PM
  #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
TheManager's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,503
Red face

Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg View Post
You mean you're not using your brain if you vote NO? Precisely! All you have are hunches and guesses as to what will happen next. Worried about a 7th short call? Bid something else. Maybe the 717 would give you a line? Oh wait, you don't really want that.... Remember, subtract 200 RJs sooner to take away capacity to be covered by 70 76 seaters and 88 717s. Then throw in a ratio that favors mainline by an extra 6%, which is significant. Ah heck, we can ask for a 28% DOS pay raise in a few years. No biggie.

I am voting no for many reasons. First we did not meet Janet pay. They are flying the 737-700 for SWA pay and get government pensions and per diem as well. They fly short legs carrying paxengers that don't ***** much. Their uniform or lack of would be a bonus. Meals provided and great medical care. Every night in their own bed. How dope is that
TheManager is offline  
Old 06-16-2012, 03:14 AM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Bluto's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Posts: 496
Default

Originally Posted by TheManager View Post
I am voting no for many reasons. First we did not meet Janet pay. They are flying the 737-700 for SWA pay and get government pensions and per diem as well. They fly short legs carrying paxengers that don't ***** much. Their uniform or lack of would be a bonus. Meals provided and great medical care. Every night in their own bed. How dope is that
Uh, that bed is in Las Vegas so I'm going to have to say, uh...not very dope.
Bluto is offline  
Old 06-16-2012, 04:54 AM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
shiznit's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
Default

A 477 Page document is anything but simple. How do we label the price tag on the scope? Ask a DAL 2000's furloughee, when DAL whacked many hundreds of mainline jobs and then the DCI carriers hired thousands.

This is not a simple decision, it is a complex document with complex changes that require complex thoughts.
shiznit is offline  
Old 06-16-2012, 05:24 AM
  #6  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: A320B
Posts: 30
Default

In 2002 they replaced our routes and our jobs with 50 seaters. It might not happen initially if this TA is approved, but soon enough, they will relace our routes and jobs with 76 seaters. That's not a hunch or a guess. A hunch or guess would be to think you could tighten scope on 76's seaters at some point in the future. That's not going to happen, unless we trade them for 90 seaters. I could see that happening in 2 1/2 years for maybe 4/8.5/3/3.
ripn6 is offline  
Old 06-16-2012, 05:58 AM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
trico's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2012
Posts: 129
Default

Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg View Post
You mean you're not using your brain if you vote NO? Precisely! All you have are hunches and guesses as to what will happen next. Worried about a 7th short call? Bid something else. Maybe the 717 would give you a line? Oh wait, you don't really want that.... Remember, subtract 200 RJs sooner to take away capacity to be covered by 70 76 seaters and 88 717s. Then throw in a ratio that favors mainline by an extra 6%, which is significant. Ah heck, we can ask for a 28% DOS pay raise in a few years. No biggie.
Same old infantile response - if you don't want to sit reserve bid away from it. Using that logic, reserve will get more onerous with every contract going forward and the gives used to increase lineholder QOL because, after all, reserve is a choice. Plus, I think Lumberg has developed Snarky Response Syndrome(SRS). He/she just can't let a no vote post go unmocked. I feel for you Bill, I am also a sufferer.
trico is offline  
Old 06-16-2012, 06:09 AM
  #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
TeddyKGB's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: 7er
Posts: 1,673
Default

Originally Posted by trico View Post
Same old infantile response - if you don't want to sit reserve bid away from it. Using that logic, reserve will get more onerous with every contract going forward and the gives used to increase lineholder QOL because, after all, reserve is a choice. Plus, I think Lumberg has developed Snarky Response Syndrome(SRS). He/she just can't let a no vote post go unmocked. I feel for you Bill, I am also a sufferer.
According to DALPA, reserve is going to be so lucrative under the new contract that you wont be senior enough to hold it! HAHAHAHAHA
TeddyKGB is offline  
Old 06-16-2012, 06:41 AM
  #9  
Back on TDY
 
Carl Spackler's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Default

Originally Posted by groundstop View Post
A NO vote is a NO brainer in my opinion.

This isn't flame bait or anything. Why would you vote in a contract that has concessions? There are many concessions in this contract. The time for concessions is over, or so I thought. Why would you vote in a contract where the work rules actually reduce our pilot group? Or a contract that farms out more RJ's? The most blatant concession is a 7th short call. DALPA can't put a spin on that one!

You can sit here and argue the various pros/cons all day, but the bottom line to be is very simple. There are concessions in this contract. I thought a contract was about improving things.
It's been one of the great psychological successes of management/DALPA. They've redefined negotiations for many pilots. Used to be that concessions only belonged in negotiations when the company's finances were bad. Now after a decade of this mindset, DALPA has agreed with management that concessions are now part of negotiations even when your company is making billions. The BS about sucking it up because all these years of profits will provide us the leverage to regain our industry leading contract, is now replaced by DALPA saying our survey requests were invalid because they are "out of context". Now every gain in our TA is fully funded by concessions in other areas. And this during a time of record past profits, record current profits, and record forecasted future profits.

Carl
Carl Spackler is offline  
Old 06-16-2012, 06:47 AM
  #10  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 88
Default

My spouse is the Delta pilot in the family and I'm with UCAL. She will make more as am md88fo than I do as a 777fo if the TA passes thus becoming the breadwinner of the family.
I am lucky to be able to see and feel both sides of having a TA to look at versus fighting for one for close to 3 years now at UCAL with no NMB release in sight. It is interesting watching the Delta TA presented 6 months ahead of the amendable date yet most can't seem to grasp the opportunity presented them. Management doesn't seem to present many opportunities at the negotiating table any more and the NMB is no help either. Sure this contract could probably be a little better but I think your NC got everything they could at this time. Take it and fight another battle 2 years from now or join us at UCAL in misery.

(not sure how the wife is going to vote but she lives with my UCAL frustration everyday and knowing management controls the next opportunity whenever that is)
ualheavy is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
DYNASTY HVY
Money Talk
0
10-15-2008 05:15 AM
pig on the wing
Cargo
27
10-11-2008 03:02 PM
Tech Maven
Pilot Health
6
08-12-2007 09:33 PM
skypine27
Cargo
5
08-09-2007 10:06 AM
Tech Maven
Money Talk
0
02-21-2006 10:21 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices