Well you see, if you read the rest of the sentence I wrote you’ll find it might help. “Contractually required pay moved up for strategic reasons.” My argument is that it is not a gesture, or something to be received with grace, it is a chess move. It is not a gift, and it is done with the same malice that all airline managements have toward their cost units. Doesn’t mean it’s bad to get an extra 5% now…not at all, but the benevolent overlord thing is naive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

We’re in agreement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Like I had mentioned in a previous post, management is NOT giving this to be “nice”. Of course I will accept a long overdue 5% raise. However, anyone who doesn’t see this as a coercive move is naive.

 

I think your type is cynical because you’d rather be wrong than naive.

This take on management isn’t correct. Not vilifying management doesn’t change how much the market will allow us to pry from their hands, but it makes going to work more enjoyable. YMMV

 

Naw, I think his take is more likely correct than not. Airline managements have historically earned their reputations thru bad behavior and motives over and over again. Pointing out their true colors isn’t cynical, it is seeing the situation for what it is. Doesn’t have to mean you’re a miserable person or even at work because you know when someone is trying to play you. ….ya but, this time this management could be different…ya, maybe. But more than likely not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Home run. Thank you.

 

Okay, let’s assume for a minute this is being done with purely nefarious intent. (Malice & coercion are some words that have been used, which if an accelerated pay raise is coercion, coerce away; but I digress…) What are our options? We keep the pressure on, demand a fair contract, and don’t accept anything less.

And if this is entirely magnanimous, what then? Keep the pressure on, demand a fair contract, and don’t accept anything less.

Frankly, I’m much more concerned about outcomes than intentions. (I’d rather have a top-tier contract given begrudgingly than a TUMI bag given with all the heartfelt gratitude & appreciation in the world.) If this results in a lesser contract, it will be because we accepted a lesser contract, in which case, we’ll have ourselves to blame. For my part, I’ll be picketing & demanding accountability from my reps while I fill the stockings a little fuller. Regardless of what you feel management’s intentions are, I’d recommend everyone do the same.

 

No disagreement here. Whatever the intent, it *shouldn’t* affect the outcome. I think folks are just pointing out that the company is absolutely doing this to influence the outcome, not out of the goodness of their heart. Eye on the ball and no problems. Buy into the BS and it could diminish the next TA or people’s willingness to accept it. If that doesn’t apply to you and you’re steadfast, excellent. Same team. Controlling the narrative is what the company is trying to do, already referring to it as a down payment on a contract. That should be combatted with an equal and opposite narrative to remind the membership of the motives and game being played.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Just read the section 6 Negotiations Update email. The fake outrage of ALPA is killing me. All of the points they are rallying against were the same things they were touting about tumi TA… I read and heard them try to include the LOA 5% to bolster their ‘industry leading pay’ raise percentage as well as brag how they negotiated all of these revolutionary reserve and work rules they spent 4 years creating. Now they are blasting management for doing the same thing with LOA pay early, and patting themselves on the back for getting back to square 1. This letter was probably written to them by a pilot after TA 1 came out and they just copied it but changed ALPA to management.
Also, I’ll gladly take the 5% early, and it will have ZERO influence on what I expect of the TA.

 

hardly free money .. it was paid for