Originally Posted by sailingfun

If you don't understand the difference between aircraft and pilot block hours there is no way to explain the rest.

Originally Posted by georgetg

ORLY? Take a look here if you really care to rehash the past:

Georgetg's take on the Transatlantic JV 2012

Georgetg's take on C2012 <-- Danger very wrong stuff here!

Cheers
George

Originally Posted by notEnuf

I won't have more money if my CA seat is an E190 at these rates. B scale without that label is still a B scale. We can negotiate that rate when it gets to the property. You remember, 737-800 style.

Originally Posted by SharpestTool

A lot of hot air and little in regard to plan b. One participant suggests that re engaging the company is plan b. I agree.

Now let's take the next step. Does RA reward the Delta pilots and capitulate? Or does he say lets see what the NMB says?

Everyone voting no should have an opinion here. Let's hear them. If you want a yes voter like me to consider your view you have to show me how it ends. I can show you how a ratification ends. I realize it's the future and unknowable as such, but you have to have a realistic idea of a timeline and result in order to make sure it's worthwhile.

Originally Posted by DoubleTrouble

Anyone know the origin of the virtual base? This concept sounds like one huge concession.

Bidding? Reserve coverage? Sick leave? Obviously no paid moves.

Was this pushed by a small group of pilots? Effect on staffing, white slips, green slips?

As one of the few who filled out the contract survey, I do not remember this item.

Originally Posted by slowplay

Denny,

I think you've allowed some incomplete or bad analysis of the items in your list. I'm a little pressed for time, but here's a quick response.



In my view, you can't use the CS or Barrons (which used incorrect numbers) reports without taking into account or discounting your item #3. The non-contracts will get a pay raise, in my view. Their pay raise will be like C2012, completely eating up the profit sharing "savings" but minimizing the additional cost growth. Neither article takes that into account. If you believe that 3B4 will protect us, then this piece doesn't work.

Uhhhh......You are telling me that company's whose business is to analyze numbers like this are wrong? Sorry but you are going to have to show me your work on that one. Okay, yes it will eat up the PS change. That doesn't alter the fact that the articles say the change in PS company wide will more than pay for our contract. True or no. If no please show your work.



I'm still trying to find out what the why and the cost of the profit sharing change regarding management comp, and I haven't seen an authoritative answer. As far as buying our raise, I disagree. This is a 8/3/3 contract, with $120 million paid early and 6% of profit sharing converted to pay. I view that conversion as a smart thing to do. The 2012 profit sharing that used to be worth 2.1% of pay is now worth about 1.6% due to compounding a fixed number. That same thing will play out over time on a larger scale with this conversion. Also, even though 8/3/3 is lower than 4/6.5/3/3 from 2012, it's worth the same dollar amount due to compounding.

Im not totally against monetizing some profit sharing (although I said leave it alone in my survey). Notice I did not put anything about whether the raise was enough or not. Just that we were trading for a raise or, in your words,converting it to pay. Like I said, I not totally against it but I do think it went too far.


See item 1 above. I don't think the change makes 3.b.4 worthless, as UAL has profit sharing, but it does diminish its value.

Okay maybe not 100% worthless but it's sure become toothless.

Absolutely a concession. Also moves toward industry standard (which sucks).



To get those 25 large RJ's we get 50 new narrowbodies AND a block hour ratio that protects against shrinkage. This continues transference of flying back to mainline 3 years ahead of our competitors and will open up a bunch of new west coast captain seats.

As I've said, I could probably live with this, it's the top end scope that is a huge problem for me and to tell you the truth, I think the Union is wrong about this one and I really don't think you can convince me otherwise. Heck the union is telling me the LCA stuff is only going to affect 180 guys, puhleeze.

I'm going to have to wait on the experts (I've sent questions to the code share committee), but I believe that GeorgeTg has a bunch wrong in his analysis. There are parts that are clearly concessionary (management immediately being back in compliance) but there are parts that provide us significant protections from AZ pulling out of the alliance, AF/KLM actions and our own upgauging.



Sick leave is clearly concessionary. It leaves us with a better program than AMR and UAL, but in my view worse than SWA (even though they don't have as many hours).

So all we can do is industry average in this negotiating environment? I'll stick with the current system thank you very much.


I don't see it as quite the bus throwing you do. They can move bases and move equipment (so not really frozen), they just have the new hire freeze added on to what their new equipment freeze is.

I understand that they can bid to different equipment in a year but it is still extracting a pound of flesh from the new guy by increasing his seat lock on the new acft by whatever the difference is.

This isn't true. On a year to year basis TA2015 delivers more money sooner than C2012 did, and it has about $200+ million more in total value. TVM actually worked, and it's compounded.

Ok, you are going to have to show me the numbers on this one. How much per year did C2012 cost the company and how much per year will "C2015" cost the company per year?

Concession. But it's not really sick leave time, it's FAR time had you flown the trip. If you'd have been legal to pick it up had you flown the sick trip, you'll still get the greenslip with your seniority.

Come on. We all know that, as long as your actual block time allows, you qualify, flight time wise, for a green slip. This changes that for the worse.


Another one I'm asking questions about intent and why it's there.



The per diem is matched with AMR and UAL. The vacation and training are less than I'd like, but add another 1% to pay.

Well that just means per diem sucks for everybody. Certainly nothing "historic" here.


Your vote is yours to cast, and thanks for considering the aggregate. Good luck to us all!

Originally Posted by slowplay

This is an indicator that you actually need to read the agreement rather than trust internet talking points.

Take a look at Section 5.B. Per Diem goes up every year, and matches UAL and AMR.

Hope you're not missing the slap.

Originally Posted by SharpestTool

A lot of hot air and little in regard to plan b. One participant suggests that re engaging the company is plan b. I agree.

Now let's take the next step. Does RA reward the Delta pilots and capitulate? Or does he say lets see what the NMB says?

Everyone voting no should have an opinion here. Let's hear them. If you want a yes voter like me to consider your view you have to show me how it ends. I can show you how a ratification ends. I realize it's the future and unknowable as such, but you have to have a realistic idea of a timeline and result in order to make sure it's worthwhile.

Originally Posted by Ferd149

As far as the company reengaging us........I highly doubt it. There is noway IMHO that the company wants the other employee groups seeing a union with that much influence/clout.