AIP->TA->Ratification Timeline
11-30-2015, 02:57 PM
#1
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Posts: 218
AIP->TA->Ratification Timeline
From the myriad of rumors it seems like this "deal" allegedly begins on Jan 1, 2016. I don't see how everything can be completed within 31 days (as of Nov 30) to make that deadline.
To be completely transparent, based on rumored info, I would vote NO on this agreement. My point about the timeline is that it would be more reasonable for the process to take 2-3 months thus making March a realistic "start date". In other words, if you're expecting a pay bump in January, I don't think it will happen. Furthermore, don't forget our current TA negotiations are set to open in May which is only two months away from (the theoretical) implementation of this extension.
Does anyone have any more concrete info or logical explanation on when the company expects or wants this extension implemented?
To be completely transparent, based on rumored info, I would vote NO on this agreement. My point about the timeline is that it would be more reasonable for the process to take 2-3 months thus making March a realistic "start date". In other words, if you're expecting a pay bump in January, I don't think it will happen. Furthermore, don't forget our current TA negotiations are set to open in May which is only two months away from (the theoretical) implementation of this extension.
Does anyone have any more concrete info or logical explanation on when the company expects or wants this extension implemented?
11-30-2015, 03:28 PM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Position: CAP A320
Posts: 301
From the myriad of rumors it seems like this "deal" allegedly begins on Jan 1, 2016. I don't see how everything can be completed within 31 days (as of Nov 30) to make that deadline.
To be completely transparent, based on rumored info, I would vote NO on this agreement. My point about the timeline is that it would be more reasonable for the process to take 2-3 months thus making March a realistic "start date". In other words, if you're expecting a pay bump in January, I don't think it will happen. Furthermore, don't forget our current TA negotiations are set to open in May which is only two months away from (the theoretical) implementation of this extension.
Does anyone have any more concrete info or logical explanation on when the company expects or wants this extension implemented?
To be completely transparent, based on rumored info, I would vote NO on this agreement. My point about the timeline is that it would be more reasonable for the process to take 2-3 months thus making March a realistic "start date". In other words, if you're expecting a pay bump in January, I don't think it will happen. Furthermore, don't forget our current TA negotiations are set to open in May which is only two months away from (the theoretical) implementation of this extension.
Does anyone have any more concrete info or logical explanation on when the company expects or wants this extension implemented?
11-30-2015, 03:37 PM
#3
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Posts: 218
These are definitely valid points. I think the me-too clause, depending on how it's written, could make this vote a lot more difficult than it looks.
My NO vote is based on:
1. The company wants something
2. Extending the current UPA just pushes us even further into the unknown as far as a new contract (think 4-6 more years).
3. 13% equals a $500-800/month net for most FO's. I'm willing to wager that amount on getting a more complete Contract from Sec 6 openers in May especially since the company wants long haul flying relief among other things.
Regardless, I think you make some great points and if the actual language shows more than the actual rumors I think a YES vote would be more than reasonable.
11-30-2015, 03:43 PM
#4
UCH Pilot
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Position: 787
Posts: 776
FF,
These are definitely valid points. I think the me-too clause, depending on how it's written, could make this vote a lot more difficult than it looks.
My NO vote is based on:
1. The company wants something
2. Extending the current UPA just pushes us even further into the unknown as far as a new contract (think 4-6 more years).
3. 13% equals a $500-800/month net for most FO's. I'm willing to wager that amount on getting a more complete Contract from Sec 6 openers in May especially since the company wants long haul flying relief among other things.
These are definitely valid points. I think the me-too clause, depending on how it's written, could make this vote a lot more difficult than it looks.
My NO vote is based on:
1. The company wants something
2. Extending the current UPA just pushes us even further into the unknown as far as a new contract (think 4-6 more years).
3. 13% equals a $500-800/month net for most FO's. I'm willing to wager that amount on getting a more complete Contract from Sec 6 openers in May especially since the company wants long haul flying relief among other things.
Then repeat, using the same negotiators on our side.
Makes total sense.
11-30-2015, 04:05 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Posts: 695
FF,
These are definitely valid points. I think the me-too clause, depending on how it's written, could make this vote a lot more difficult than it looks.
My NO vote is based on:
1. The company wants something
2. Extending the current UPA just pushes us even further into the unknown as far as a new contract (think 4-6 more years).
3. 13% equals a $500-800/month net for most FO's. I'm willing to wager that amount on getting a more complete Contract from Sec 6 openers in May especially since the company wants long haul flying relief among other things.
Regardless, I think you make some great points and if the actual language shows more than the actual rumors I think a YES vote would be more than reasonable.
These are definitely valid points. I think the me-too clause, depending on how it's written, could make this vote a lot more difficult than it looks.
My NO vote is based on:
1. The company wants something
2. Extending the current UPA just pushes us even further into the unknown as far as a new contract (think 4-6 more years).
3. 13% equals a $500-800/month net for most FO's. I'm willing to wager that amount on getting a more complete Contract from Sec 6 openers in May especially since the company wants long haul flying relief among other things.
Regardless, I think you make some great points and if the actual language shows more than the actual rumors I think a YES vote would be more than reasonable.
Too new here to have a "valid enough" opinion on the whole deal, but just saying that the company "wants" something so we should automatically demand more seems like a useless circular argument. Back it up with facts and I'm all ears. The Delta me-too sounds like a nice insurance policy in the mean time. Time value of money and all that.... It seems tough to imagine a few years of negotiations is going to have good odds of working out better.
...back to my seat in the peanut gallery...
11-30-2015, 04:40 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Mitch....really? Since January is paid in Feb, the vote could happen in January and we could still get paid on time. Chuck, Svergin, and Fanatical NAILED it. We have an experienced Negotiating Committee. They didn't get duped. Sounds like you've been listening to all the Monday morning cockpit jockeys out there...."never take the first offer, if they want it that bad, they'll pay more"...yada, yada, yada. If the rumors are true, this is a slam dunk. Watch and see.
Sled
Sled
11-30-2015, 04:41 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,861
Maybe the Hogan test is working better than we all thought - for the company.
If anybody knows how hey are going to vote before any official information is a serious fail IMO.
Hope the MEC really considers the ramifications of sending this out to a vote. If it does then I will evaluate the official TA in final language.
If anybody knows how hey are going to vote before any official information is a serious fail IMO.
Hope the MEC really considers the ramifications of sending this out to a vote. If it does then I will evaluate the official TA in final language.
11-30-2015, 04:46 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
Leverage and non wage contractual improvements have value. Squander away the leverage and I'll guarantee you won't see non wage contractual improvements for years.
It all comes down to are we leaving money on the table? I was told by a wise person that you normally come out behind when you have to have something.
It all comes down to are we leaving money on the table? I was told by a wise person that you normally come out behind when you have to have something.
11-30-2015, 04:55 PM
#9
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
Leverage and non wage contractual improvements have value. Squander away the leverage and I'll guarantee you won't see non wage contractual improvements for years.
It all comes down to are we leaving money on the table? I was told by a wise person that you normally come out behind when you have to have something.
It all comes down to are we leaving money on the table? I was told by a wise person that you normally come out behind when you have to have something.
I think this puts us in a far better negotiating position in 2 years, regardless of what the economy does. When we are being paid 20% less than the industry, for YEARS, the company has all the leverage. This swings that pendulum back to us.
11-30-2015, 05:01 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
With pay raises now, and DAL "me too", we are under far less pressure to get a contract done, and the lower minions are less likely to vote in a substandard contract because they are tired of being underpaid for 4-6 years.
I think this puts us in a far better negotiating position in 2 years, regardless of what the economy does. When we are being paid 20% less than the industry, for YEARS, the company has all the leverage. This swings that pendulum back to us.
I think this puts us in a far better negotiating position in 2 years, regardless of what the economy does. When we are being paid 20% less than the industry, for YEARS, the company has all the leverage. This swings that pendulum back to us.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
