Last Year > This Week
08-13-2016, 01:17 PM
#42
Runs with scissors
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Posts: 7,730
08-13-2016, 01:38 PM
#43
Bus driver
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 838
What you have are a group of new Reps who were elected by their angry internet friends, primarily on a "kick the bums out we'll show em'" ticket who are now bumping into the reality of inconvenient math that refutes their tough guy claims and clearly demonstrates that TVM with a good possibility of retro and a little less now is worth close to twice as much a year later. My contacts say the NC followed MEC direction, but now the goalposts are being moved by influence of the vocal fringe. Screw the rest of us.
Instead they would rather throw the entire pilot group under the bus than stand up in the crew room and take the heat from the mob that elected them. Almost as bad are a few experienced Reps who should know better, that by participating in the shutting down of open dialogue on a historic level, allowed themselves and the MEC to be held hostage to these same Reps. Had the debate occurred in open there might have been the ability for some with reservations to speak up and possibly reach consensus to a possibly different outcome.
The real problem is the wave of support that these new Reps rode into office on will diminish as this drags out and when the same support starts getting impatient for a deal they will realize the Reps they elected and used their pressure on to stay tough have now likely locked them out of a more valuable deal than they could of had earlier.
I guess then they can Recall, rinse, repeat.
Instead they would rather throw the entire pilot group under the bus than stand up in the crew room and take the heat from the mob that elected them. Almost as bad are a few experienced Reps who should know better, that by participating in the shutting down of open dialogue on a historic level, allowed themselves and the MEC to be held hostage to these same Reps. Had the debate occurred in open there might have been the ability for some with reservations to speak up and possibly reach consensus to a possibly different outcome.
The real problem is the wave of support that these new Reps rode into office on will diminish as this drags out and when the same support starts getting impatient for a deal they will realize the Reps they elected and used their pressure on to stay tough have now likely locked them out of a more valuable deal than they could of had earlier.
I guess then they can Recall, rinse, repeat.
Second, what in the name of goodness is it that elevates section 3 of our contract to a seemingly religious level for you and your FPL sucking buddies? Could it be that you suck up so much FPL, and never fly under the work rules you shove down our throats, might that have something to do with it?
Third and last, when you and your we know what's best for you buddies were the majority, life was good and normal. Now that you're not, those of us that elected the current majority are "angry internet friends"...really? Where do you come with this drivel?
08-13-2016, 03:25 PM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 321
First off, wow that was hard to read. Sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it?
Second, what in the name of goodness is it that elevates section 3 of our contract to a seemingly religious level for you and your FPL sucking buddies? Could it be that you suck up so much FPL, and never fly under the work rules you shove down our throats, might that have something to do with it?
Third and last, when you and your we know what's best for you buddies were the majority, life was good and normal. Now that you're not, those of us that elected the current majority are "angry internet friends"...really? Where do you come with this drivel?
Second, what in the name of goodness is it that elevates section 3 of our contract to a seemingly religious level for you and your FPL sucking buddies? Could it be that you suck up so much FPL, and never fly under the work rules you shove down our throats, might that have something to do with it?
Third and last, when you and your we know what's best for you buddies were the majority, life was good and normal. Now that you're not, those of us that elected the current majority are "angry internet friends"...really? Where do you come with this drivel?
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!
08-13-2016, 03:42 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: "Prof" button manipulator
Posts: 1,685
Maybe if your Company "pony boys" would've had the intestinal fortitude to do the same last summer, for a TA that truly needed an overwhelming "NO VOTE", we wouldn't have wasted so much time getting here?
08-13-2016, 04:01 PM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 654
The PS executive "carve out" in their section 3 proposal was straight insulting. Might as well have written "eff you" on a piece of paper and slid it across the table.
Kinda started to feel a bit personal, after that...
Kinda started to feel a bit personal, after that...
08-13-2016, 04:18 PM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: Power top
Posts: 2,960
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!
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!
08-13-2016, 04:34 PM
#48
Bus driver
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 838
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!
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!
Point 2. for you to post that, and keep a straight face, I feel sorry for you. Reference point 1...but if the company is not offering a contract worthy of us, and what they can pay, who cares what the NMB thinks?
Point 3. your suggestion in point 3 is that the NMB will gauge where we (the pilot group, MEC) is, versus where the company (management) is when we have our conference call later this month, to gauge where we're at? The response will be, the company is still at a too low position, based on having to sell back a few billion more worth of shares by the end of the year...versus us, wanting to get up to industry standard. Sounds like the company will have to flex a lot.
Point 4. The NMB will evaluate our position, and I hope they tell us to take a year out to think about it...all the while, Delta will try to hire the third or fourth tier candidates to work for what was once a great, but day by day less than great airline to work for.
Point 5. Sounds a lot like point 4...the company will come in under industry standard from top to bottom, and the NMB will park us for a year. Victory, again, for us!
Point 6. Don't care what the NMB thinks, they're not on my Christmas Card list. Park us for a day or 3 years, don't care. Take you TVM, and smoke it!
Good day!
08-13-2016, 04:53 PM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 321
Point 1. who cares what the NMB thinks.
Point 2. for you to post that, and keep a straight face, I feel sorry for you. Reference point 1...but if the company is not offering a contract worthy of us, and what they can pay, who cares what the NMB thinks?
Point 6. Don't care what the NMB thinks, they're not on my Christmas Card list. Park us for a day or 3 years, don't care. Take you TVM, and smoke it!
Good day!
Point 2. for you to post that, and keep a straight face, I feel sorry for you. Reference point 1...but if the company is not offering a contract worthy of us, and what they can pay, who cares what the NMB thinks?
Point 6. Don't care what the NMB thinks, they're not on my Christmas Card list. Park us for a day or 3 years, don't care. Take you TVM, and smoke it!
Good day!
The NMB looks at pattern bargaining and is not going to take a position of mediating, proffering, or arbitrating a contract that falls outside of the incremental increases of other recent carriers (total value as opposed to cherry pick the best of each) contracts.
But hey, they can pack sand and are not on your Xmas card list. Hope you at least paid attention to TVM as far your retirement planning goes
08-13-2016, 05:04 PM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,995
One final point and I'm back to permanent lurking and you can have your echo chamber back:
The NMB looks at pattern bargaining and is not going to take a position of mediating, proffering, or arbitrating a contract that falls outside of the incremental increases of other recent carriers (total value as opposed to cherry pick the best of each) contracts.
But hey, they can pack sand and are not on your Xmas card list. Hope you at least paid attention to TVM as far your retirement planning goes
The NMB looks at pattern bargaining and is not going to take a position of mediating, proffering, or arbitrating a contract that falls outside of the incremental increases of other recent carriers (total value as opposed to cherry pick the best of each) contracts.
But hey, they can pack sand and are not on your Xmas card list. Hope you at least paid attention to TVM as far your retirement planning goes
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
