Columbia

No kidding. Looks like Finis has some reading comprehension problems. Ready, fire, aim!

Sink r8

Scambo,

I'm thinking along the same lines, assuming the rumors are true, and the contract doesn't make up for low payrates in other areas, but the problem might be similar to the AT 2 T/A's situation. Guys will be livid that they didn't get to vote if the economy tanks, and they will be livid if we get nowhere in the traditional track, at which point we'll start tearing ourselves apart, and guys will be livid anyway.

The place where these kinds of things have to stop is the negotiating table. Negotiators have to be willing to walk way. Thing is, if they're delivering what the MEC gave them for a bottom line, they shouldn't walk away. And if the MEC is telling the negotiators that what we want is what we said we wanted in the survey. At which point, we have only ourselves to blame, but since we don't like to blame ourselves, we'll say we were compelled to fill out hopelessly low numbers in our private surveys, I suppose.

Either way, the rumored 4/8/3/3 is either clearly unsat vis-a-vis the survey, or our actual private expectations are completely below the stated expectations we usually announce publicly on APC and the ALPA forum. Sort of a stated income problem, and we all know how well that worked out for the housing market.

For the record, I didn't think payrates in and of themselves make a contract, but I thought 18/5/5/5 was reasonable.

DeadHead

Might want to read the rest of Sailing's post.

Don't see the sense in getting all wrapped around the axle over rumors and conjecture at this point. We'll see this TA in a few days, might as well save our energy until then

capncrunch

Good news is they relaxed the uniform standards...

More Bacon

You are right. I jumped the gun, and fixed my original post.
My bad, Sailing. I apologize. I agree with your take.
If true, it must be voted down by the MEC.

forgot to bid

I'd rather take the risk and let us vote on it then just have the MEC vote it down. I think a resounding no vote would be a big show of Bar like unity.

There really is no way to spin these numbers to a positive. There is no way it passes.

Unless this is the expectations game, manage lower then come in high. Makes the unacceptable look great! 15% in the first year? Sounds bad unless you're expecting 12%.

scambo1

If this rumor has any basis in fact, I would NOT expect to see a TA unless:

DCI went away. Section 1 was 100% fixed. DC contribution went to the 415C limit. Profit sharing stayed. 500 early retirements were incentivised. etc.

In this case, I might consider voting yes.

I have also emailed my reps.

Sink r8

And a 51% pass condemns us to purgatory, where ALPA is weaker, DPA stronger by default, and we have to look at ourselves in the mirror, and realize we're just a bunch of cheap [deleted].

Unless, of course, the T/A delivered what actually privately asked for. In which case you'll never meet a single person in the 60% that voted it in. This might be a time when we HAVE to show our hand, and release some of the survey results.

I was wondering if maybe this was some sort of leak check? But you're right, round numbers like 5/10/5/5 might work. I haven't heard many people in person ask for more than 15%, but very few ask for less.

Jughead

Where did this rumor come from?

I'm not trying to sound condescending, but maybe we should all chill out until some actual facts are presented. Then we can complain and threaten to vote it down.

NWA320pilot

I agree 15% per year would be acceptable........ 5/10/5/5 will pass the over 55 crowd but for the younger bunch there will need to be more in order to pass.