TA Reached
12-20-2022, 01:03 PM
#621
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2019
Position: baller, shot caller
Posts: 1,025
12-20-2022, 01:04 PM
#622
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,203
Absolutely a yes here. The explanations are clear and concise on the SPA ALPA website. To vote no opens up far too many 'what ifs' and they're not worth the risk. A yes vote sets us up nicely to bargain in the TPA/JCBA where the real gains will be made. No need to climb a mountain in a single leap when clear steps are provided for those who's eyes are open. This isn't a true Sec. 6 and shouldn't be treated, or viewed, as such.
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/e...ext-year-poll/
That may actually decrease the leverage. Truthfully, there are no ‘no-risk’ options. Not saying you are necessarily wrong, just that “absolutely” is probably not the way anyone should look at it, pro or con. Just the known unknowables ought to cause people to agonize a little over this vote. Anyone absolutely sure they are voting correctly probably doesn’t understand the complexity.
12-20-2022, 03:20 PM
#623
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2015
Posts: 256
The "younguns" meaning probationary pilots can't vote. Those who've been on property more than a year don't have that mindset because they haven't gotten crazy salary increases like the "younguns" received at the regionals.
Still confused on why you're a "yes" and then complaining about the "younguns." That statement makes literally 0 sense.
Still confused on why you're a "yes" and then complaining about the "younguns." That statement makes literally 0 sense.
12-20-2022, 03:29 PM
#624
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2015
Posts: 256
The "younguns" meaning probationary pilots can't vote. Those who've been on property more than a year don't have that mindset because they haven't gotten crazy salary increases like the "younguns" received at the regionals.
Still confused on why you're a "yes" and then complaining about the "younguns." That statement makes literally 0 sense.
Still confused on why you're a "yes" and then complaining about the "younguns." That statement makes literally 0 sense.
12-20-2022, 03:51 PM
#625
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2019
Posts: 198
Perhaps. The problem is that 70% of economists predict the US will be in recession about the time the TPA/JCBAwill (perhaps) be happening:
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/e...ext-year-poll/
That may actually decrease the leverage. Truthfully, there are no ‘no-risk’ options. Not saying you are necessarily wrong, just that “absolutely” is probably not the way anyone should look at it, pro or con. Just the known unknowables ought to cause people to agonize a little over this vote. Anyone absolutely sure they are voting correctly probably doesn’t understand the complexity.
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/e...ext-year-poll/
That may actually decrease the leverage. Truthfully, there are no ‘no-risk’ options. Not saying you are necessarily wrong, just that “absolutely” is probably not the way anyone should look at it, pro or con. Just the known unknowables ought to cause people to agonize a little over this vote. Anyone absolutely sure they are voting correctly probably doesn’t understand the complexity.
12-20-2022, 04:56 PM
#626
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2022
Posts: 896
I am a yes.
Main reason; if this merger falls apart I would rather be sitting at these TA rates when we have to open section 6 with a non profitable company than our current 2018 contract. Also, if this merger fails and Frontier comes back, (Franke) I would much rather be at these TA rates than the 2018 rates while we slog it out with F9 for a JCBA against Franke.
This isnt about having "balls". This is based on my opinion that the insurance of locking down these TA rates is worth more than the possibility, not probability, that they come back to the table. And even IF they do, there is no guarantee that the time lost will be made up for with any, if any, increase in another TA.
Main reason; if this merger falls apart I would rather be sitting at these TA rates when we have to open section 6 with a non profitable company than our current 2018 contract. Also, if this merger fails and Frontier comes back, (Franke) I would much rather be at these TA rates than the 2018 rates while we slog it out with F9 for a JCBA against Franke.
This isnt about having "balls". This is based on my opinion that the insurance of locking down these TA rates is worth more than the possibility, not probability, that they come back to the table. And even IF they do, there is no guarantee that the time lost will be made up for with any, if any, increase in another TA.
What are the odds of the merger failing? About zero. Shareholders want it. .gov will approve.
12-20-2022, 05:17 PM
#627
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Airplane
Posts: 2,385
I did as well and am a yes! My take is we have a lot of "younguns" around here that want their cake no matter what the cost. Makes me think of trying to explain economics to my kids. I'm sure all the hear is blah, blah, blah.......then they end with "so can we get it"??!!
12-20-2022, 05:45 PM
#628
That/It/Thang
Joined APC: Aug 2020
Posts: 2,954
12-20-2022, 07:47 PM
#629
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2022
Posts: 896
If it worked that way we wouldn’t be collectively bargaining and we’d all be working for much less bc there would clearly be many that value themselves less than and be chomping at the bit to fly a 320 for less than both of us.
12-20-2022, 09:21 PM
#630
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,203
https://thehill.com/business-a-lobby...3-bottom-line/
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
