SharpestTool

Ok, there's the Poo. Where's your numbers?

SharpestTool

Yes to pay bands? I think pay bands are taboo here aren't they?

gzsg

aa 787, a 330 1/1/16 $293.11

Carl Spackler

You are the only one saying that. I've never said it. Profit sharing is unknown and impossible to predict compensation. Since a Section 6 negotiation deals exclusively with future contractual items, it is impossible to cost out profit sharing in a Section 6...because we can't predict its future dollar value. If you can't cost it out, the NMB would never allow management to have it be the last stumbling block prior to an impasse. Therefore, all we have to do is say no to any management proposals to reduce profit sharing and the status quo would have to be maintained.

Again, nobody is saying that but you. A false initial premise does not make your conclusions correct. Nobody but you has ever said profits will never go down.

That's also incorrect. Nobody but you is saying that. What many of us have said is that profit sharing reductions ("monetization") does not belong in Section 6 negotiations. IF we pilots are inclined to do so because a majority thinks we're at the top of corporate profitability, that's great but we must do so AFTER Section 6 is completed. If you include "monetization" in Section 6, you are self funding your contractual gains. That's the problem.

You'll never be able to get people to understand your point of view if you continue to mischaracterize what we think. You'll only succeed in bashing arguments that only you are making.

Carl

BenderRodriguez

How far are FedEx and SWA into their negotiations? How much headway have they made? And you are hanging your rhetoric talking points on their contracts? lulz

But, if you are correct then that is good because it is exactly what is supposed to happen in pattern bargaining. You act like it's a bad thing. I hope they DO exceed us, but I am not as optimistic as you are vis-a-vis FDX and LUV.

gzsg

I think we are agreeing here. Pattern bargaining. We must exceed the AA hourly rates. 15% 1/1/16. Hopefully by a large margin. Helping UAL, SWA and FedEx.

Elliot

TSquare, is that you?

First answer that comes to mind. What are your thoughts about longevity based pay? YES/NO

Carl Spackler

Again, only you are saying that. RA will account for profit sharing exposure by calculating it via his predictions on what corporate profits might be. Any executive team would do that. The issue is that those predictions won't fly with the NMB as being properly costed out. In fact, if management attempted to do that, it would open the door for DALPA to demand costing via predictions. Neither side wants to set that precedent in these or any other Section 6. The best course of action for management to take is to get pilots to voluntarily give up all or part of their profit sharing. Which is exactly why we're seeing this multi-pronged approach to demean profit sharing in the eyes of pilots.

This melodrama doesn't add to clarity. The NMB would simply tell Delta management that a non-costed item can't be the only remaining item prior to impasse. If management persisted, the NMB would label them as bargaining in bad faith.

Carl

Carl Spackler

What "situation" are you referring to ST? Your totally untrue and distorted arguments that only you are making?

Section 6 is not an "exercise" ST. It's a tried and true process that allow for significant gains to be made by labor if the environment is right. And by the way, the environment has never been 'righter.'

RA might well think that. It's up to our union to disagree and make the case for much more in this environment.

Your thesis ignores retroactive pay for being 18 months late.

This is the second time you've said this now. Is your only real purpose here to have excrement fights?

Carl

Carl Spackler

That's funny because I was thinking the exact same thing. Tsquare was the only poster that would frequently use the term "lulz" in response to a post.

Could it be? Has Tsquare returned to us?

Carl