Last Year > This Week
08-14-2016, 09:02 AM
#71
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,456
Everyone wants that. That is easy. Problem is the company has clearly stated that for any deal ever get done, a few of their issues need to be addressed. Case in point is, "the best MEC ever" has realized this as well. With the release of the AIP's the internet has gotten mad, and the MEC is now blinking.
C2012 with 2004+ payables. How is that making unreasonable demands?
08-14-2016, 09:39 AM
#73
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 7ERA
Posts: 1,231
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.
08-14-2016, 10:30 AM
#74
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,235
EXACTLY!
We monetized a couple % in 2012 for a small pay rate bump. Guess what? It's already obsolete. We'd have the same pay rates anyways due to 3B4.
We gave up profit sharing........ for NOTHING! As you say, single worst idea ever.
We monetized a couple % in 2012 for a small pay rate bump. Guess what? It's already obsolete. We'd have the same pay rates anyways due to 3B4.
We gave up profit sharing........ for NOTHING! As you say, single worst idea ever.
08-14-2016, 10:50 AM
#75
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2015
Posts: 845
This right here!!^^^^^!!
We'd get to keep those higher rates for one contract cycle and then they'd be gone as our union contact "comparison" would show our rates above competitors rates... They'd be gone forever....
We'd get to keep those higher rates for one contract cycle and then they'd be gone as our union contact "comparison" would show our rates above competitors rates... They'd be gone forever....
08-14-2016, 11:59 AM
#76
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Left seat of a little plane
Posts: 2,431
Money now is almost always worth more than money later. Except, you'd rather get money later than money now. Why?
You get your PS "in advance" if you will, every single paycheck. You'll get some tomorrow, and Sept 15, etc. That beats waiting until Feb 14. However... I don't consider a PS for pay rate change a raise. It is merely a transfer, but in advance.
08-14-2016, 12:03 PM
#77
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Position: Cockpit speaker volume knob set to eleven.
Posts: 1,410
It is not obsolete. Why you keep pounding that drum over and over I'll never understood.
Money now is almost always worth more than money later. Except, you'd rather get money later than money now. Why?
You get your PS "in advance" if you will, every single paycheck. You'll get some tomorrow, and Sept 15, etc. That beats waiting until Feb 14. However... I don't consider a PS for pay rate change a raise. It is merely a transfer, but in advance.
Money now is almost always worth more than money later. Except, you'd rather get money later than money now. Why?
You get your PS "in advance" if you will, every single paycheck. You'll get some tomorrow, and Sept 15, etc. That beats waiting until Feb 14. However... I don't consider a PS for pay rate change a raise. It is merely a transfer, but in advance.
08-14-2016, 12:05 PM
#78
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: Power top
Posts: 2,960
It is not obsolete. Why you keep pounding that drum over and over I'll never understood.
Money now is almost always worth more than money later. Except, you'd rather get money later than money now. Why?
You get your PS "in advance" if you will, every single paycheck. You'll get some tomorrow, and Sept 15, etc. That beats waiting until Feb 14. However... I don't consider a PS for pay rate change a raise. It is merely a transfer, but in advance.
Money now is almost always worth more than money later. Except, you'd rather get money later than money now. Why?
You get your PS "in advance" if you will, every single paycheck. You'll get some tomorrow, and Sept 15, etc. That beats waiting until Feb 14. However... I don't consider a PS for pay rate change a raise. It is merely a transfer, but in advance.
08-14-2016, 12:15 PM
#79
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Left seat of a little plane
Posts: 2,431
But those opposed to the trade are mathematically challenged.
Let me ask you. When C2K was ratified it was applauded for getting rid of PS, not criticized. Were we "doomed" then? Certainly no one was claiming that.
08-14-2016, 12:40 PM
#80
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: Power top
Posts: 2,960
You obviously did not read my last sentence. A PS for pay rate trade is exactly that, a trade not a raise. In fact I am on board with a contract that provides for pay raises, then after that is ratified THEN discuss a PS for pay rates trade.
But those opposed to the trade are mathematically challenged.
Let me ask you. When C2K was ratified it was applauded for getting rid of PS, not criticized. Were we "doomed" then? Certainly no one was claiming that.
But those opposed to the trade are mathematically challenged.
Let me ask you. When C2K was ratified it was applauded for getting rid of PS, not criticized. Were we "doomed" then? Certainly no one was claiming that.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
