What are the Top 10 TA Issues that need Fixin
10-05-2015, 09:20 PM
#91
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Can you shed more light on "shelved" ? Curious how that went down. Also if the trigger was 11:35 then that sure looks like an example of the first deal was the better one? If I recall we had no 777's anytime near 4a2b. Now we do and just a SWAG but the Company obviously wanted the right to fly over 16 hours block, but not bad enough to apparently pay the old price? Or are you saying the NC just was lazy and never even asked for the same deal that was "shelved"?
Look forward to more details as this may be a learning moment as we consider the value of this TA and what me might get should it be turned down.
.
10-06-2015, 01:26 AM
#92
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2013
Posts: 360
It may have worked out for you, however, I wonder how many people have missed a trip or arrived very late. Not such a big deal in the US, where there are people all over the place, easy to get someone there. Internationally, it could be a significant delay. Arriving at the last minute could mean you've left no legal backups. If there have been service failures because of this, I can see why the company would want to change it. I have seen the company schedule deadheads and min layovers for the last flight of the night, and thought how stupid that was.
That's what I'm asking! If there has been service failures, show me the data. You mention "I wonder" and "if there were service failures". Well, I'd like to see justification for me having to back up my no-later-than time 6 hours. I'm not saying it doesn't exist (sure hope it does), but I think we should be shown supporting numbers for us to lose a half a day to a day to make an 18 hr check in.
10-06-2015, 07:37 AM
#93
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,095
That's what I'm asking! If there has been service failures, show me the data. You mention "I wonder" and "if there were service failures". Well, I'd like to see justification for me having to back up my no-later-than time 6 hours. I'm not saying it doesn't exist (sure hope it does), but I think we should be shown supporting numbers for us to lose a half a day to a day to make an 18 hr check in.
10-07-2015, 08:39 AM
#94
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,200
Bumping back towards the top hoping others will participate with the original intent of his thread
There's a strong consensus out there that the "yes" voters are not really that happy with this TA, but just don't see a way forward during a renegotiation
I contend a focused list of corrections is possible --- and certainly worthwhile
Perhaps a "Top 10" list is too broad
What are the "Top 5" issues that should be fixed?
What are reasonable solutions you'd find acceptable given all the debate to date?
There's a strong consensus out there that the "yes" voters are not really that happy with this TA, but just don't see a way forward during a renegotiation
I contend a focused list of corrections is possible --- and certainly worthwhile
Perhaps a "Top 10" list is too broad
What are the "Top 5" issues that should be fixed?
What are reasonable solutions you'd find acceptable given all the debate to date?
10-07-2015, 09:06 AM
#95
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,095
In the ideal TA, I would find the cornerstones met. And for TOP 5, I would vote yes in a heartbeat:
1. Increase cap or multiplier for A-plan, for all on property, and all new hires.
2. Increase B-plan to 10% on DOS, taxable cash over cap, for all on property, and all new hires.
3. Implement real time fully-automated trip trading tied to full CRS transparency with OTP at 125% during CIC and not continue with daily Open Time queue for this one reason.
4. Add a "me too" clause to keep up with legacy pay rates (since we compare ourselves to them so readily), specially for a 6 year deal.
5. SLR - Develop the language, parameters and penalties first, then include in a TA, in 2021. Have the company prove they can do the right thing with PBS by making VTO's a great QOL portion of the bid pack. Until that language is tight and understood, we should not be voting on it.
Not gains, but erasing the following concessions:
1. Keep max health care cost increase at 6%/year, even with CDHP
2. Keep HILO as is
3. Keep 8 in 24
4. Keep 1st class DH's
5. Keep hotel trigger at 4 hours.
Can the company afford all this? Yes. Would we be more productive as well? Yes.
Now, if our company had had some really bad years in the last 15 with big losses, and the outlook was grim, and global competition for our market segment was intensely strong (as in what pax carriers face), and we were overmanned, and our customers' rates couldn't be increased every year, and if we hadn't provided the revenue that built the rest of the corporation, and we hadn't helped the corporation save around $300M in fuel costs, and we didn't have $4B in cash for TNT acquisition, and if labor settlements were not important to the EU's approval for the TNT deal, and we hadn't been abused under the current CBA's language, and VTO's were super senior because of how reliable they are, and CRS worked by the CBA, and we were not required to get Dr's notes when sick, then yes, I would happily vote for the TA we have now.
1. Increase cap or multiplier for A-plan, for all on property, and all new hires.
2. Increase B-plan to 10% on DOS, taxable cash over cap, for all on property, and all new hires.
3. Implement real time fully-automated trip trading tied to full CRS transparency with OTP at 125% during CIC and not continue with daily Open Time queue for this one reason.
4. Add a "me too" clause to keep up with legacy pay rates (since we compare ourselves to them so readily), specially for a 6 year deal.
5. SLR - Develop the language, parameters and penalties first, then include in a TA, in 2021. Have the company prove they can do the right thing with PBS by making VTO's a great QOL portion of the bid pack. Until that language is tight and understood, we should not be voting on it.
Not gains, but erasing the following concessions:
1. Keep max health care cost increase at 6%/year, even with CDHP
2. Keep HILO as is
3. Keep 8 in 24
4. Keep 1st class DH's
5. Keep hotel trigger at 4 hours.
Can the company afford all this? Yes. Would we be more productive as well? Yes.
Now, if our company had had some really bad years in the last 15 with big losses, and the outlook was grim, and global competition for our market segment was intensely strong (as in what pax carriers face), and we were overmanned, and our customers' rates couldn't be increased every year, and if we hadn't provided the revenue that built the rest of the corporation, and we hadn't helped the corporation save around $300M in fuel costs, and we didn't have $4B in cash for TNT acquisition, and if labor settlements were not important to the EU's approval for the TNT deal, and we hadn't been abused under the current CBA's language, and VTO's were super senior because of how reliable they are, and CRS worked by the CBA, and we were not required to get Dr's notes when sick, then yes, I would happily vote for the TA we have now.
Last edited by CloudSailor; 10-07-2015 at 09:18 AM.
10-07-2015, 09:22 AM
#96
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Position: MD
Posts: 194
CS has my vote for the new NC chairman or at least a seat at the table. The above listed items are an excellent representation of what should be corrected. Completely reasonable, affordable, and necessary. Well said.
After extensive review of the TA, our current CBA looks better and better in MANY areas. Why reinvent the wheel. Rally behind a new NC and make the necessary changes. It's not rocket science. Many of the changes are cost neutral anyway. The $$$ issues are easily covered by the recently announced cost increases to customers in a single year. Nothing to fear here.
The company gains a happy, productive crew force. We gain a few more crumbs from the corporate pie.
After extensive review of the TA, our current CBA looks better and better in MANY areas. Why reinvent the wheel. Rally behind a new NC and make the necessary changes. It's not rocket science. Many of the changes are cost neutral anyway. The $$$ issues are easily covered by the recently announced cost increases to customers in a single year. Nothing to fear here.
The company gains a happy, productive crew force. We gain a few more crumbs from the corporate pie.
Last edited by GetRealDude; 10-07-2015 at 09:32 AM.
10-07-2015, 09:57 AM
#97
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,200
In the ideal TA, I would find the cornerstones met. And for TOP 5, I would vote yes in a heartbeat:
1. Increase cap or multiplier for A-plan, for all on property, and all new hires.
2. Increase B-plan to 10% on DOS, taxable cash over cap, for all on property, and all new hires.
3. Implement real time fully-automated trip trading tied to full CRS transparency with OTP at 125% during CIC and not continue with daily Open Time queue for this one reason.
4. Add a "me too" clause to keep up with legacy pay rates (since we compare ourselves to them so readily), specially for a 6 year deal.
5. SLR - Develop the language, parameters and penalties first, then include in a TA, in 2021. Have the company prove they can do the right thing with PBS by making VTO's a great QOL portion of the bid pack. Until that language is tight and understood, we should not be voting on it.
Not gains, but erasing the following concessions:
1. Keep max health care cost increase at 6%/year, even with CDHP
2. Keep HILO as is
3. Keep 8 in 24
4. Keep 1st class DH's
5. Keep hotel trigger at 4 hours.
Can the company afford all this? Yes. Would we be more productive as well? Yes.
Now, if our company had had some really bad years in the last 15 with big losses, and the outlook was grim, and global competition for our market segment was intensely strong (as in what pax carriers face), and we were overmanned, and our customers' rates couldn't be increased every year, and if we hadn't provided the revenue that built the rest of the corporation, and we hadn't helped the corporation save around $300M in fuel costs, and we didn't have $4B in cash for TNT acquisition, and if labor settlements were not important to the EU's approval for the TNT deal, and we hadn't been abused under the current CBA's language, and VTO's were super senior because of how reliable they are, and CRS worked by the CBA, and we were not required to get Dr's notes when sick, then yes, I would happily vote for the TA we have now.
1. Increase cap or multiplier for A-plan, for all on property, and all new hires.
2. Increase B-plan to 10% on DOS, taxable cash over cap, for all on property, and all new hires.
3. Implement real time fully-automated trip trading tied to full CRS transparency with OTP at 125% during CIC and not continue with daily Open Time queue for this one reason.
4. Add a "me too" clause to keep up with legacy pay rates (since we compare ourselves to them so readily), specially for a 6 year deal.
5. SLR - Develop the language, parameters and penalties first, then include in a TA, in 2021. Have the company prove they can do the right thing with PBS by making VTO's a great QOL portion of the bid pack. Until that language is tight and understood, we should not be voting on it.
Not gains, but erasing the following concessions:
1. Keep max health care cost increase at 6%/year, even with CDHP
2. Keep HILO as is
3. Keep 8 in 24
4. Keep 1st class DH's
5. Keep hotel trigger at 4 hours.
Can the company afford all this? Yes. Would we be more productive as well? Yes.
Now, if our company had had some really bad years in the last 15 with big losses, and the outlook was grim, and global competition for our market segment was intensely strong (as in what pax carriers face), and we were overmanned, and our customers' rates couldn't be increased every year, and if we hadn't provided the revenue that built the rest of the corporation, and we hadn't helped the corporation save around $300M in fuel costs, and we didn't have $4B in cash for TNT acquisition, and if labor settlements were not important to the EU's approval for the TNT deal, and we hadn't been abused under the current CBA's language, and VTO's were super senior because of how reliable they are, and CRS worked by the CBA, and we were not required to get Dr's notes when sick, then yes, I would happily vote for the TA we have now.
Hoping many others will chime in as well
Dare, I even say --- even the current "yes" voters can benefit from the exercise
Many say they will support the majority if the TA is voted down
That's great --- and then there will be an opportunity to fix the portions everyone finds most undesirable.
So what are they?
I'd like to especially hear from those still undecided & on the fence
Fear & worry of the unknown are most commonly overcome through greater study & preparation...followed by action, not inaction
Let's explore where middle/common ground exists, and then proactively unify on a set of focused changes
10-07-2015, 12:59 PM
#98
Part Time Employee
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,918
.....Now, if our company had had some really bad years in the last 15 with big losses, and the outlook was grim, and global competition for our market segment was intensely strong (as in what pax carriers face), and we were overmanned, and our customers' rates couldn't be increased every year, and if we hadn't provided the revenue that built the rest of the corporation, and we hadn't helped the corporation save around $300M in fuel costs, and we didn't have $4B in cash for TNT acquisition, and if labor settlements were not important to the EU's approval for the TNT deal, and we hadn't been abused under the current CBA's language, and VTO's were super senior because of how reliable they are, and CRS worked by the CBA, and we were not required to get Dr's notes when sick, then yes, I would happily vote for the TA we have now.
The best run-on sentence that says it all!!!!!
10-08-2015, 07:16 PM
#100
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,756
In the ideal TA, I would find the cornerstones met. And for TOP 5, I would vote yes in a heartbeat:
1. Increase cap or multiplier for A-plan, for all on property, and all new hires.
2. Increase B-plan to 10% on DOS, taxable cash over cap, for all on property, and all new hires.
3. Implement real time fully-automated trip trading tied to full CRS transparency with OTP at 125% during CIC and not continue with daily Open Time queue for this one reason.
4. Add a "me too" clause to keep up with legacy pay rates (since we compare ourselves to them so readily), specially for a 6 year deal.
5. SLR - Develop the language, parameters and penalties first, then include in a TA, in 2021. Have the company prove they can do the right thing with PBS by making VTO's a great QOL portion of the bid pack. Until that language is tight and understood, we should not be voting on it.
Can the company afford all this? Yes. Would we be more productive as well? Yes.
Now, if our company had had some really bad years in the last 15 with big losses, and the outlook was grim, and global competition for our market segment was intensely strong (as in what pax carriers face), and we were overmanned, and our customers' rates couldn't be increased every year, and if we hadn't provided the revenue that built the rest of the corporation, and we hadn't helped the corporation save around $300M in fuel costs, and we didn't have $4B in cash for TNT acquisition, and if labor settlements were not important to the EU's approval for the TNT deal, and we hadn't been abused under the current CBA's language, and VTO's were super senior because of how reliable they are, and CRS worked by the CBA, and we were not required to get Dr's notes when sick, then yes, I would happily vote for the TA we have now.
1. Increase cap or multiplier for A-plan, for all on property, and all new hires.
2. Increase B-plan to 10% on DOS, taxable cash over cap, for all on property, and all new hires.
3. Implement real time fully-automated trip trading tied to full CRS transparency with OTP at 125% during CIC and not continue with daily Open Time queue for this one reason.
4. Add a "me too" clause to keep up with legacy pay rates (since we compare ourselves to them so readily), specially for a 6 year deal.
5. SLR - Develop the language, parameters and penalties first, then include in a TA, in 2021. Have the company prove they can do the right thing with PBS by making VTO's a great QOL portion of the bid pack. Until that language is tight and understood, we should not be voting on it.
Can the company afford all this? Yes. Would we be more productive as well? Yes.
Now, if our company had had some really bad years in the last 15 with big losses, and the outlook was grim, and global competition for our market segment was intensely strong (as in what pax carriers face), and we were overmanned, and our customers' rates couldn't be increased every year, and if we hadn't provided the revenue that built the rest of the corporation, and we hadn't helped the corporation save around $300M in fuel costs, and we didn't have $4B in cash for TNT acquisition, and if labor settlements were not important to the EU's approval for the TNT deal, and we hadn't been abused under the current CBA's language, and VTO's were super senior because of how reliable they are, and CRS worked by the CBA, and we were not required to get Dr's notes when sick, then yes, I would happily vote for the TA we have now.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
