No vote now gets you a 6% raise
11-15-2016, 09:35 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
We're sitting here looking at a free hotel room or not having to commute for a few months for a tiny percentage of pilots while the company is looking at huge down the road cost savings and reduced headcount. Remember the first large RJ order? Its just 20 planes. That's all they want. It'll allow them to develop markets blah blah blah a few years later they have over 300 large "RJ's". How did that happen? Checkers vs chess. They knew all along where they wanted to take it and they made sure it went there, while all we could see at each move was 6" in front of our faces.
Of course we all have one vote. But there aren't nearly enough target city commuters who would benefit from a few paltry perks that VB's offer them to justify a company wide loss of jobs and seniority poaching. Even if 100% of all pilots who want them spoke out in favor, and only 10% of the rest spoke out against them, the program won't be renewed.
11-15-2016, 09:37 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: A350 Both
Posts: 7,292
Its still the perfect analogy.
We're sitting here looking at a free hotel room or not having to commute for a few months for a tiny percentage of pilots while the company is looking at huge down the road cost savings and reduced headcount. Remember the first large RJ order? Its just 20 planes. That's all they want. It'll allow them to develop markets blah blah blah a few years later they have over 300 large "RJ's". How did that happen? Checkers vs chess. They knew all along where they wanted to take it and they made sure it went there, while all we could see at each move was 6" in front of our faces.
Of course we all have one vote. But there aren't nearly enough target city commuters who would benefit from a few paltry perks that VB's offer them to justify a company wide loss of jobs and seniority poaching. Even if 100% of all pilots who want them spoke out in favor, and only 10% of the rest spoke out against them, the program won't be renewed.
We're sitting here looking at a free hotel room or not having to commute for a few months for a tiny percentage of pilots while the company is looking at huge down the road cost savings and reduced headcount. Remember the first large RJ order? Its just 20 planes. That's all they want. It'll allow them to develop markets blah blah blah a few years later they have over 300 large "RJ's". How did that happen? Checkers vs chess. They knew all along where they wanted to take it and they made sure it went there, while all we could see at each move was 6" in front of our faces.
Of course we all have one vote. But there aren't nearly enough target city commuters who would benefit from a few paltry perks that VB's offer them to justify a company wide loss of jobs and seniority poaching. Even if 100% of all pilots who want them spoke out in favor, and only 10% of the rest spoke out against them, the program won't be renewed.
11-15-2016, 09:40 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
LOLwut?
I've said repeatedly that the VB's in the TA are not a reason to vote no, because there is a unilateral pull down provision. That IMO removes that otherwise poison pill from consideration on the Yes/No scale.
IMO one's vote shouldn't have anything to do with VB's. However, if the TA MEMRAT's, we should then pull it down fast and hard.
I've said repeatedly that the VB's in the TA are not a reason to vote no, because there is a unilateral pull down provision. That IMO removes that otherwise poison pill from consideration on the Yes/No scale.
IMO one's vote shouldn't have anything to do with VB's. However, if the TA MEMRAT's, we should then pull it down fast and hard.
11-15-2016, 10:43 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: A350 Both
Posts: 7,292
LOLwut?
I've said repeatedly that the VB's in the TA are not a reason to vote no, because there is a unilateral pull down provision. That IMO removes that otherwise poison pill from consideration on the Yes/No scale.
IMO one's vote shouldn't have anything to do with VB's. However, if the TA MEMRAT's, we should then pull it down fast and hard.
I've said repeatedly that the VB's in the TA are not a reason to vote no, because there is a unilateral pull down provision. That IMO removes that otherwise poison pill from consideration on the Yes/No scale.
IMO one's vote shouldn't have anything to do with VB's. However, if the TA MEMRAT's, we should then pull it down fast and hard.
But it has a pulldown provision.#stillpatient
11-15-2016, 11:19 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,027
I would say our current profit sharinf payouta are us playing chess vs their checkers. They were even short-sided enough to give ps with no ceiling to every single employee without considering what the long-term future held resulting in the highest profit sharing payouts at any company in history.
11-15-2016, 11:20 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,610
No, the rotations are and would be built so that they flew as working crew to MCO but I know you knew that!
11-15-2016, 11:23 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Road construction signholder
Posts: 2,432
Give me a break PD. I suppose a pilot could "verify all sick calls for the rest of his career." I also suppose an asteroid could crash into the White House in the next 30 seconds. Both have an equally likely chance to happen.
11-15-2016, 03:13 PM
#28
Sick of whiners
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Position: 767 VEOP
Posts: 507
Well, for starters, their PS formula concession is very lame compared to what we were able to retain.
.
Your dark cloud perspective on life as you know it must be getting old for you. It sure is tiring to me.
.
11-15-2016, 03:23 PM
#29
Sick of whiners
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Position: 767 VEOP
Posts: 507
Where is the complaining about other employees getting a raise. Good for them. I always thought they would get a raise and 3b4 would lift us up if the company decided to drag this on. What this means is we will be getting a 6% raise if we vote No. Seems pretty straight forward.
Before today, the tune was if you vote no, we will not get a raise for a very long time. Now it is, if you vote no, I guess you'll get a 6% raise, but but but there is no way you will ever get anything more than that for a very long time.
Before today, the tune was if you vote no, we will not get a raise for a very long time. Now it is, if you vote no, I guess you'll get a 6% raise, but but but there is no way you will ever get anything more than that for a very long time.
.
Hmmmmm, let me think... Wait til April for a 6% raise, or get a 21.5% raise six weeks from TODAY with a year of 18% retro.
Do you really think voting no and waiting until April is an effective strategy going forward?
.
Seek professional help.
.
11-15-2016, 03:28 PM
#30
Sick of whiners
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Position: 767 VEOP
Posts: 507
.
Well, the value I place on it is ~$2 an hour for the VBer. In terms of a W2? Who GAS? Not me.
.
You really need to find a new writer Drank. Your arguments are not even a little persuasive.
.
Your buddy,
KSF
.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
CAL EWR
Union Talk
8
11-08-2008 02:37 PM
