View Poll Results: What say you?
Yes
214
72.30%
No
82
27.70%
Voters: 296. You may not vote on this poll
Extension TA Poll
12-28-2015, 12:38 PM
#41
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 846
The offset is waiting two more years before many section 6 items can be addressed. However, this TA does fix some issues so that they don't have to be fought over in the next contract.
I personally think that it will be a better negotiating environment to fix section 6 issues in a couple of years than what we currently have.
I personally think that it will be a better negotiating environment to fix section 6 issues in a couple of years than what we currently have.
12-28-2015, 12:47 PM
#42
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
The company feared big losses of revenue due to cancelled or delayed ULH flights. Trailing DAL in earnings, they were anxious to find a way to stabilize it, so Wall Street confidence would not falter.
Then they were given an option for a very lucrative deal for CS100s, but since Bombardier was teetering on bankruptcy, the deal was time-limited. Having seen the RJ writing on the wall, and the need for mainline 100 seaters, they wanted to secure rates BEFORE announcing a buy or delivery....so there would be no delays due to negotiations for rates.
A move for NSNBs could possibly also tie to investor confidence, since that is the trend at the big three, and they would not want to see us lagging behind.
Full Section 6 takes time....they wanted to get the critical pieces done.
That's my theory.
12-28-2015, 12:47 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: guppy CA
Posts: 5,171
Here's a question back to you. How long does it take to negotiate a full contract?
I'm used to seeing these things drag out for a couple of years. In comparison, this TA looks like low hanging fruit - able to be grabbed immediately rather than wait until 2019 for a new contract. Can it be done faster? Sure. Are there any guarantees that we'll be able to get most of the section 6 problems fixed? No.
Do you view this TA as an incremental gain or loss? I view it as an incremental gain; better than a lot of (multiyear negotiated) contracts I've seen.
Is it perfect? No, but name me one contract that is perfect. Even C2K gave up some work rules.
My theory:
The company feared big losses of revenue due to cancelled or delayed ULH flights. Trailing DAL in earnings, they were anxious to find a way to stabilize it, so Wall Street confidence would not falter.
Then they were given an option for a very lucrative deal for CS100s, but since Bombardier was teetering on bankruptcy, the deal was time-limited. Having seen the RJ writing on the wall, and the need for mainline 100 seaters, they wanted to secure rates BEFORE announcing a buy or delivery....so there would be no delays due to negotiations for rates.
A move for NSNBs could possibly also tie to investor confidence, since that is the trend at the big three, and they would not want to see us lagging behind.
Full Section 6 takes time....they wanted to get the critical pieces done.
That's my theory.
The company feared big losses of revenue due to cancelled or delayed ULH flights. Trailing DAL in earnings, they were anxious to find a way to stabilize it, so Wall Street confidence would not falter.
Then they were given an option for a very lucrative deal for CS100s, but since Bombardier was teetering on bankruptcy, the deal was time-limited. Having seen the RJ writing on the wall, and the need for mainline 100 seaters, they wanted to secure rates BEFORE announcing a buy or delivery....so there would be no delays due to negotiations for rates.
A move for NSNBs could possibly also tie to investor confidence, since that is the trend at the big three, and they would not want to see us lagging behind.
Full Section 6 takes time....they wanted to get the critical pieces done.
That's my theory.
12-28-2015, 01:35 PM
#44
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 846
UAL T38 Phyer/Andy to cover both your responses, this is a piecemeal approach to negotiations. We sign off on this TA and we'll likely see our contract destroyed by the company doing one-on-one negotiations with the MEC Chairmen be it JH or his replacement. Let's see what the first real item on the company's agenda is. This deal didn't just happen. It has been in the planning stages for some time. The company lawyers knew exactly the short term greed affect on a small segment of the pilot group and will play us with all the open ends this TA creates.
12-28-2015, 01:46 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: guppy CA
Posts: 5,171
UAL T38 Phyer/Andy to cover both your responses, this is a piecemeal approach to negotiations. We sign off on this TA and we'll likely see our contract destroyed by the company doing one-on-one negotiations with the MEC Chairmen be it JH or his replacement. Let's see what the first real item on the company's agenda is. This deal didn't just happen. It has been in the planning stages for some time. The company lawyers knew exactly the short term greed affect on a small segment of the pilot group and will play us with all the open ends this TA creates.
How long does it take to negotiate a full contract?
Do you view this TA as an incremental gain or loss?
I would like to read your opinion on those two questions.
12-28-2015, 01:54 PM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Cal reserve..the gift that keeps on giving
Posts: 532
Just a thought..why haven't we been told What type the new order will be for? More importantly, why haven't they put it in ink? If it's the cs300 it's a good deal..if it's the 100/190 or 195, those pay rates suck all around. I think it should be known exactly what we are voting in favor for or against..
12-28-2015, 01:58 PM
#47
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 846
Long term loss and Short term incremental gain at the expense of the whole.
12-28-2015, 03:13 PM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: guppy CA
Posts: 5,171
Just a thought..why haven't we been told What type the new order will be for? More importantly, why haven't they put it in ink? If it's the cs300 it's a good deal..if it's the 100/190 or 195, those pay rates suck all around. I think it should be known exactly what we are voting in favor for or against..
I don't have an answer to how long it will take to get a new contract negotiated but if history's a guide, it will take more than a year and likely a couple of years.
For what it's worth, you would be taken more seriously if you spelled the guy's name correctly.
12-28-2015, 03:50 PM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: UAL Guppy CA
Posts: 233
Just a thought..why haven't we been told What type the new order will be for? More importantly, why haven't they put it in ink? If it's the cs300 it's a good deal..if it's the 100/190 or 195, those pay rates suck all around. I think it should be known exactly what we are voting in favor for or against..
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
