You're a 4
06-05-2012, 06:19 PM
#71
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
No they aren't. they are target fixated on one... single... item... And nothing else. If they were looking long term they would realize that this is a slam dunk yes vote.. especially for the bottom of the list.. Every single guy that I have talked to that is around my seniority or above says pretty much the same thing. "This contract does little for the upper part of the list, but is a no brainer great deal for the bottom.." Every... single... one.
I look for loopholes too. And I have looked very very hard at section 1. I don't see that which isn't there.
And I apologize if my posts come across as condescending.
I look for loopholes too. And I have looked very very hard at section 1. I don't see that which isn't there.
And I apologize if my posts come across as condescending.
You've got to admit, it's funny that the senior guys don't see much in it and call it a junior pilot's contract. The junior guys see it and don't see much in it either, because there's not much for them either.
The fact is, there's not much in it for anyone...
06-05-2012, 06:22 PM
#72
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Yet, here we are. Moving the line to allow more jumbo long range RJ's that will be around for a very long time is quite the risky move.
I need to find that quote about not one more seat or jet from the union publication a few months back.
06-05-2012, 06:57 PM
#73
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 758
Well, if you had asked anyone about increasing large RJ's from 255 to 325, you would have been thrown out of the room and burned alive.
Yet, here we are. Moving the line to allow more jumbo long range RJ's that will be around for a very long time is quite the risky move.
I need to find that quote about not one more seat or jet from the union publication a few months back.
Yet, here we are. Moving the line to allow more jumbo long range RJ's that will be around for a very long time is quite the risky move.
I need to find that quote about not one more seat or jet from the union publication a few months back.
06-05-2012, 07:03 PM
#75
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Come on, t. You know better than this. The TA is nowhere near optimum, even if you're at your most optimistic. There are numerous things left out, and it is more an extension than it is a full new contract.
You've got to admit, it's funny that the senior guys don't see much in it and call it a junior pilot's contract. The junior guys see it and don't see much in it either, because there's not much for them either.
The fact is, there's not much in it for anyone...
You've got to admit, it's funny that the senior guys don't see much in it and call it a junior pilot's contract. The junior guys see it and don't see much in it either, because there's not much for them either.
The fact is, there's not much in it for anyone...
Carl
06-05-2012, 07:05 PM
#76
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: 757 Left
Posts: 169
Yup. For the most part, I am looking at this as an extension. And here's why it is a good thing even given the rates (which are actually pretty good given the state of the industry/economy) And I will just give you the bullet points and let you connect the dots yourselves.
Look at our debt.
Look at the paydown schedule
Look at when the projected $10 billion line will occur, and how much in interest payments will be saved by the company
Look at when this contract will become amendable.
Connect dots.
The only fly in THIS ointment is the question of who is gonna jump the bar we will (hopefully) set with this TA.
Look at our debt.
Look at the paydown schedule
Look at when the projected $10 billion line will occur, and how much in interest payments will be saved by the company
Look at when this contract will become amendable.
Connect dots.
The only fly in THIS ointment is the question of who is gonna jump the bar we will (hopefully) set with this TA.
Wow. The we will get them next time rational.
06-05-2012, 07:30 PM
#78
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: 737n/FO
Posts: 667
I'm trying to figure out where the NC decided that working more for a marginal increase in pay was worth the exchange - I would have taken 4/3/3/3 with same profit share, no increase in reserve guarantee and no increase in ALV, no change in scope. If you tell me the NMB would have taken the companies side on something like that then we're even worse off than it looks.
06-05-2012, 10:00 PM
#79
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: 777 Sim Instructor
Posts: 745
I'm trying to figure out where the NC decided that working more for a marginal increase in pay was worth the exchange - I would have taken 4/3/3/3 with same profit share, no increase in reserve guarantee and no increase in ALV, no change in scope. If you tell me the NMB would have taken the companies side on something like that then we're even worse off than it looks.
06-05-2012, 10:08 PM
#80
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
It doesn't negate the possibility of a quick return for fixing some of the more crappy sections of the TA, either.
I'm a pretty dang good poker player, and I am willing to take my chances with the no vote at this point. Fix a few things, and this contract extension (as so eloquently pointed out by someone more clever than I) will get my vote.
