Originally Posted by Chuck Essential

Actually, not stalling at all.

Contract Awareness Bulletins were being prepared at that time to inform all of the pilots at the same time. They were distributed on July 14 and 27. He was spot on accurate and completely truthful. But some folks only like to hear only what they want to hear.



In your zeal to deride every effort by ALPA on your behalf, you are missing the underlying truth and the self-evident point that something as simple as agreeing on a pay rate that had been already previously agreed to by both parties, the new negotiators were directed by the ego and emotions of the newly established MEC majority and they were sent in to up the ante and retreat from the previously agreed position.

The result was a negotiations stalemate . . . which some could see as stalling. (Is any of this sounding familiar?)

Fortunately, the PWA provided a process which resulted in the June arbitration hearing. We will know where the dot is when the (single) arbitrator provides his ruling.

Originally Posted by Xray678

I would agree following the polling data is a noble idea. But I don't trust the data. Last summer polling got us TA15 and polling also indicated it would pass. ALPA polling doesn't have a good track record lately.

Originally Posted by Purple Drank

You are correct, sir. A one-time trade. To be lost in the next bargaining cycle.

Originally Posted by Rogue24

Wrong. The value is ported to pay rates, which pay every year. The benefit of a conversion is a few fold. 1) It now has PS applied to it, where previously you wouldn't get PS on PS(Thats a limit in the PWA if you are curious) 2) Those rates compound with every raise you get, where as PS does not compound on PS 3) The conversion effect dilutes every raise you get, because the more money you make, the greater percentage of the total wages you become, and as a result more of the avail PS you get.

The math is not that difficult, nor is understanding that its not a one time trade. If that were the case you would only get the rate raise for one year, and then the year after you would have your rates would be reduced

Originally Posted by Rogue24

Wrong. The value is ported to pay rates, which pay every year. The benefit of a conversion is a few fold. 1) It now has PS applied to it, where previously you wouldn't get PS on PS(Thats a limit in the PWA if you are curious) 2) Those rates compound with every raise you get, where as PS does not compound on PS 3) The conversion effect dilutes every raise you get, because the more money you make, the greater percentage of the total wages you become, and as a result more of the avail PS you get.

The math is not that difficult, nor is understanding that its not a one time trade. If that were the case you would only get the rate raise for one year, and then the year after you would have your rates would be reduced

Originally Posted by Rogue24

Wrong. The value is ported to pay rates, which pay every year. The benefit of a conversion is a few fold. 1) It now has PS applied to it, where previously you wouldn't get PS on PS(Thats a limit in the PWA if you are curious) 2) Those rates compound with every raise you get, where as PS does not compound on PS 3) The conversion effect dilutes every raise you get, because the more money you make, the greater percentage of the total wages you become, and as a result more of the avail PS you get.

The math is not that difficult, nor is understanding that its not a one time trade. If that were the case you would only get the rate raise for one year, and then the year after you would have your rates would be reduced

Originally Posted by notEnuf

Profit sharing is based on the entire corporations profit. Shifting those funds into pay rates 1) reduces the amount of pay that is generated by all the sources the company has. 2) profits and managements focus on increasing them through the virtual merger strategy have a higher percentage potential to increase than fixed hourly rates. 3) monetizing even a portion is to reduce the value and claim the pilots have to the financial success of the company

Pay rates compensate for your time, profit sharing compensates for your investment.

Originally Posted by Valar Morghulis

First, I fly the line and live and work under PWA like everyone else. Second, why is it anyone who disagrees with the generally anti-establishment, anti-ALPA tone here and thinks we are making mistakes is a FPL sucking management shill?

A couple points for you to ponder:

1) We are currently not at the negotiating table - we are under the guiding authority from this point of the NMB

2) Negotiations were halted for the MEC to contemplate the future path we take because of our, not the companies NC position. They made the last offer and our NC did not have the flexibility as a result of direction, to engage in a meaningful counter.

3) Moving forward the mediator will review our respective positions at the end of August and decide whether we (and the company) have the flexibility to re-engage in meaningful fruitful negotiations.

Another point to consider reference the mediators desicion on where a deal lies is if he thought our position had the flexibility to move us towards where he saw a potential TA he would not have called a time out. Foot stomper

4) When he reviews our revisited positions the outcomes are likely to be:

- (a) go take some more time to think about it,
- (b) clear to re-engage

5) If cleared to re-engage, we counter the companies last position. If they make a meaningful counter that we subsequently don't have the flexibility to respond to again towards where the mediator sees the potential deal we will either be given another temporary time out or perhaps a longer one to re-evaluate our position and redirect again.

It doesn't matter what we think we deserve, how much the company is making, what raise RA and EB gave themselves, or how much stock buy back they do. It's now a game of chicken with someone else deciding where and when you pull off the tracks. The idea is to have enough negotiating flexibility where the mediator thinks it's the company that is not moving as opposed to the MEC.

The danger in what just transpired reference the shutting down of discussion and a majority cram down vs. a majority consensus is the process by which the majority position is derived. If it was just usual MEC politics or elections it would simply be distasteful, in the current NMB scenario it could negatively impact our ability to get the best contract attainable. I want the MEC to fight like cats and dogs and derive thier majority position as a body, not by ambush.

In the mean time the clock is ticking, and it's going to keep getting more expensive to break even on a deal next year. The pundits love to dismiss TVM in negotiations, but no one does in investing. Doh!

Originally Posted by Rogue24

Wrong. The value is ported to pay rates, which pay every year. The benefit of a conversion is a few fold. 1) It now has PS applied to it, where previously you wouldn't get PS on PS(Thats a limit in the PWA if you are curious) 2) Those rates compound with every raise you get, where as PS does not compound on PS 3) The conversion effect dilutes every raise you get, because the more money you make, the greater percentage of the total wages you become, and as a result more of the avail PS you get.

The math is not that difficult, nor is understanding that its not a one time trade. If that were the case you would only get the rate raise for one year, and then the year after you would have your rates would be reduced