Laughing_Jakal

Yes, but like a lot of this TA...it's not in there and we don't have the option of a pen and ink change. Up to me.....I'd whip out the ole bic and write in the margin and I'd initial it JAKAL

BlackKnight

Wow. I feel for you CS.

Hey Rock- maybe this makes sense. 20-200 degrees is 180 degrees, right? 30-210 is also, right? What CS was trying to point out is that >175 degrees, or 180 "lie flat", does not mean HORIZONTAL. CS was trying to point out the TA does NOT state 180 degrees/lie flat meant from 90-270 degrees, or vice-versa.

Does that make sense?

FDXLAG

So cloud you object to accepting A380 payrates because We don't have any but you have a problem with objecting to vertical Flat Bed seats that don't exist?

CloudSailor

LAG, I have nothing else to add to your discussion if you cannot glean the answer you are searching for from the previous posts on this thread.

I think many of us on here are truly discussing, maybe in opinionated, one-sided ways, but still, discussing to better learn the finer details of how this TA might affect us. Yeah, maybe joking sometimes, maybe being sarcastic, but really trying to discuss to figure it out.

I think from day 1 you saw the monetary gains, and wanted this TA to pass, so that you can retire under it, with your extra cash, regardless of how the QOL issues will affect us living and working under it for the next decade. Then you went on to post for about a month, saying you were undecided and 'on the fence', in a completely transparent way by supporting every gain while denying every concession, which showed your being and discussing on here, is completely false.

Still, you claimed you were undecided.

It seems that now that you are finally decided, you are arguing for the sake of arguing in a completely empty way. Have fun doing it.

Rock

Just catching up here. Waiting for anyone to find a single actual example of a seat on any airliner that lies within 5 degrees of flat, but isn't within a couple degrees of horizontal. CloudSailor, it is you who claim this is a real problem. Prove it. Until then, your major issue exists only in your mind.
We could all invent issues to be upset about I guess. If you could prove yours is a real problem, it might actually influence my vote. Give it a shot.

Rock

It makes perfect sense. Now find an actual example of what you are describing in the real world.

BlackKnight

Wasn't my point. You kept arguing with CS that 180 meant horizontal. You didn't seem to understand this part of his point.

I am also skeptical that if an airline offers a "lie flat bed", whether current or not, if the company won't schedule us in those seats thinking they meet the intent of the TA. Again, CS argued that enclosing the language to include lie flat and 180 to also mean horizontal would've been easy, and clear. I agree.

I could easily see an airline marketing a lie flat seat/180 that goes from ~80-260 degrees or whatever it is, in order to fit more seats total on an airplane configuration. He merely wanted a simple line added to protect us. But you argued and argued 180....

It's about trusting the company and not stretching language. CS and I don't trust them. History and fact would trend toward to the latter, IMO.

FDXLAG

Opinions and *ssholes we all have. Initially I was reluctant to trust the professionals we hired to negotiate for us. I read the TA and listened to the hard sell no voters and decided to trust the professionals we hired to negotiate for us. A better deal is not available.

But I hope this helps:
Is a lie-flat airplane seat worth the extra cost?

angry tanker

Rock - check out American Airlines 757 from ANC-DFW. It is called "angled lie flat." It lies out about 180, but is angled so you slide down it. Just an example of not horizontal, but probably meets the contract. We'll grieve it and lose, cause it isn't spelled out in black and white.

J586

Bingo! Cash over cap...