Search

Notices

Self funding TA?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12-31-2015, 06:25 PM
  #81  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
Default

Originally Posted by Regularguy
The answer is Full section 6 is not nor ever has been on the table with this whole TA process.
Originally Posted by Regularguy
Please inform us when section 6 was on the table early? Never has been in my 37+ years.
Originally Posted by Regularguy
For the one who brought the IAM, do you know how long it took to get their last contract?
Amazing!!!
Flytolive is offline  
Old 12-31-2015, 06:28 PM
  #82  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
Default

Over the last three years the Delta pilots have made 4.6%, 4.9% & 14.4% more in profit sharing alone than United pilots. They have made 3% more pay than United pilots over the last two years. Their reserve guarantee is two hours more for up to two less days of work/month. They get up to 270 hours of sick leave/year compared to our 60 hours. That's over 2 months potential pay. DAL has a short term disability plan we have none. Delta pilots pay nothing for LTD although their benefits are taxed.

United pilots get 1% more B/C plan and better vacation accrual.
Flytolive is offline  
Old 12-31-2015, 07:50 PM
  #83  
Gets Weekends Off
 
ugleeual's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: 767/757 CA
Posts: 2,701
Default

Originally Posted by Flytolive
Over the last three years the Delta pilots have made 4.6%, 4.9% & 14.4% more in profit sharing alone than United pilots. They have made 3% more pay than United pilots over the last two years. Their reserve guarantee is two hours more for up to two less days of work/month. They get up to 270 hours of sick leave/year compared to our 60 hours. That's over 2 months potential pay. DAL has a short term disability plan we have none. Delta pilots pay nothing for LTD although their benefits are taxed.

United pilots get 1% more B/C plan and better vacation accrual.

Guess we started working for the wrong airline...
ugleeual is offline  
Old 12-31-2015, 08:50 PM
  #84  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
Default

Flytolive

What's amazing is how you keep missing my point.

So I'll post it again

"My point to Scott and all the others who keep bringing up section 6 is quite clear, the ALPA process is working the way it should. If you don't like the outcome then volunteer and if you won't do that, vote your conscience on the TA and enjoy life a bit.

It is what it is and it works quite well over the long run. Now stop eating your own."

I'll write one more thing; if you don't like the outcome then do something more than being so snippy on a blog or two. But of course that would ruin the entertainment factor of reading these blogs.


It's a new year and flying is a living.
Regularguy is offline  
Old 01-01-2016, 05:22 AM
  #85  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
Default

Originally Posted by Regularguy
Please inform us when section 6 was on the table early? Never has been in my 37+ years.
Amazing isn't it? How many times has the company offered such an extension in your 37+ years? By offering the IAM Section 6 over a year early it is obvious that has been available to the pilots as well. It begs the question, why didn't we opt for Section 6?
Flytolive is offline  
Old 01-01-2016, 05:33 AM
  #86  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: SFO Guppy CA
Posts: 1,112
Default

My understanding of the process that we entered into is that full Section 6 was never in play, unless we fail to ratify this TA. If we vote to reject this TA then full Section could possibly begin sometime in May. If we vote to reject this TA, I believe that either party "could" proffer for early Section 6. But either party could reject the proffer.

Full Section 6 would be lengthy in my opinion. I admire how organized the DALMEC and NC are with their package that they began their rejuvenated Section 6. I also think that it was a tactical error because this is still a negotiation and most of their pilots (that I know) view this package as a minimum that they'll vote to ratify. For example, their proposed pay rates 22%, 7%, and 7%. I think that when it's all said and done those increases will possibly be around the 15-17% and the following steps will see a similar adjustment. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if they shot for the moon, the horizon will be lower.

Another fun fact is that most financial indexes were level for the year of 2015. No growth, in fact a slight decline in the DOW and S&P. Just sayin!!!
DashTrash is offline  
Old 01-01-2016, 05:35 AM
  #87  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: SFO Guppy CA
Posts: 1,112
Default

Originally Posted by Flytolive
Amazing isn't it? How many times has the company offered such an extension in your 37+ years? By offering the IAM Section 6 over a year early it is obvious that has been available to the pilots as well. It begs the question, why didn't we opt for Section 6?
Maybe the NC did proffer for a Section 6 and the Company rejected it. As is their option to do.
DashTrash is offline  
Old 01-01-2016, 05:45 AM
  #88  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
Default

Originally Posted by DashTrash
Maybe the NC did proffer for a Section 6 and the Company rejected it. As is their option to do.
Most if not all of the UA NC will be back flying the line after the elections in a few weeks.
Flytolive is offline  
Old 01-01-2016, 06:51 AM
  #89  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 846
Default

Originally Posted by Regularguy
Flytolive

What's amazing is how you keep missing my point.

So I'll post it again

"My point to Scott and all the others who keep bringing up section 6 is quite clear, the ALPA process is working the way it should. If you don't like the outcome then volunteer and if you won't do that, vote your conscience on the TA and enjoy life a bit.

It is what it is and it works quite well over the long run. Now stop eating your own."

I'll write one more thing; if you don't like the outcome then do something more than being so snippy on a blog or two. But of course that would ruin the entertainment factor of reading these blogs.


It's a new year and flying is a living.
I don't see any indication that we are eating our young or own. What I do see is a pilot group trying to preserve some of what we had and improve it in other areas. 40B stock buy back at the expense of the employees is something we can go after instead of this TA and go full contract negotiations. Piecemeal approach and we lose. The MEC was forced into this TA and it was basically along legacy lines. Good question is why, now that we are about 3 years into the JCBA, why do we still have that divide?

Last edited by AllenAllert; 01-01-2016 at 07:06 AM.
AllenAllert is offline  
Old 01-01-2016, 09:31 AM
  #90  
Gets Weekends Off
 
MasterOfPuppets's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: 787
Posts: 3,202
Default

There's nothing in this TA.....Nothing but 13%......SEC 6 will produce better than nothing I gurantee that, and I will benifits more from QOL improvements and work rules than I ever will with money now.

I don't think there is a good enough reason to go into talks With 5 items and Come out with 2 1/2, MOU 22 replacement is only for widebody pilots so it counts as a half since it left out half the airline. MOU22 could be reinstated if the company agreed to play ball, no need to negotiate that. FRMS could have/can be done as an LOA. So if you really look at it there is NOTHING in this TA just a 2 year cash buyout.

NO NO NO
MasterOfPuppets is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
kc135driver
Money Talk
4
03-23-2011 09:37 AM
JoeMerchant
Regional
96
10-22-2009 07:17 PM
klsfdx
Cargo
10
03-08-2009 06:02 PM
LeoSV
Hangar Talk
0
06-27-2007 03:59 AM
SikPilot
Major
1
03-29-2007 02:06 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices