Alaska pilots - please think twice before you vote!

[Mamma]

Yeah, he sure has. Every furloughed pilot is getting what, $40 a month from his "fund". Since there are no accounting controls no one knows how much he's taking in, do they? Maybe he should be know as "Scam King."

Fubi, jj,
That was a real lame comment and pretty unjustified if you know SK. Sure he rants a lot but your comment was pretty below the belt. He has not done anything to you...well maybe he has but he has at least done it to your face rather than accuse you of being a thief while hiding behind an anonymous screen name. You should be ashamed.

 

[Ih8AFYesmen]

Damn Fubi,
You should put down that crack pipe before you open your cake hole about someone you know nothing about. Do you even know S.K. personally? Fabricating stories about one of our own is pretty damn low. We all have our differences but please don't back stab one of our own, especially on a public forum. That's a new low. Now, what was that about being emotional? Hmmm.

 

[wscrj]

Fubi, totally out of line. Be a man and apologize. You may not see eye to eye with him, but the man has ACTUALLY done something to try and ease the burden on the furloughed folks. Can you say the same?

 

[dashtrash]

Emotional and judgmental? Let's read the rest of YOUR post and see whose pot is calling whose kettle black.



Yeah, he sure has. Every furloughed pilot is getting what, $40 a month from his "fund". Since there are no accounting controls no one knows how much he's taking in, do they? Maybe he should be know as "Scam King."

Spoken like someone that's given zero! Sick.

 

[igneousy2]

"Tweaking" doesn't really justify rejection of a TA. If you get 85% of what you want in a deal, that's a pretty damned good deal. There is a lot of risk in going back to the table after rejecting a TA. It should only be done when the TA is truly awful. I vote against a TA at my company (AirTran) because it was a truly terrible TA. Your TA is pretty good. It's just not perfect. Big difference.

Your logic is screwed up.

So let me ask you...what percentage is okay. 51%, 70%, 85%?


You are mesmerized by the hourly rates and your brain ceases to function.

You have to look at the WHOLE package.

Also you have to compare it to what WE (Alaska) already have and not what you (Air Tran) currently have.

If they gave us everything we wanted and all that was left was these substandard pay rates then I would agree with you.

However, this is not the case as previously mentioned.

The main thing is that we are giving up a substantial amount of the retirement program for new hires.

You need about a 12-15% mandatory company contribution to match what an A-plan gives you using a conservative diverse portfolio. We ALREADY have an A-plan and a 3% mandatory contribution DC...so in my view any talk of a DC replacing an A-plan better have a mandatory contribution of between 15-18%...or it is in fact concessionary.

We would be BETTER off to get parked under the current contract then to be living under this new retirement system going forward.

This is not some noble effort on my part...this is purely selfish. I don't REALLY give a damn about the new hires. I don't know who they are or when/if their will be new hires. I have only my own self-interest at heart.

I have a LOT of years left and I know that if we agree to this contract we are going to give up a LOT of negotiating capital in 2013, 2017, 2021, 2025...trying to equalize the benefits for the two classes of pilots that this TA creates.

At some point the "have nots" will represent the majority...do you not think they will approve a "TA" with a pay freeze for senior captains, do you not think they will gladly impose a hard freeze on our A plans so that the company can afford to give the FO's raises.

I am voting AGAINST this TA. We are better off with the status-quo.

 

[igneousy2]

What would make me vote yes...

1. New Productivity improvements limited to times when nobody is furloughed.

2. Give new hires the same option that we will get. Right now option B seems to be the obvious choice because option C does not give you enough money. If they want people to choose C let them put out more carrots.

3. Get us back to pre-kasher by the end of the contract even if it means signing a 5 year deal to do it.

These tweaks would make a huge difference to me and I don't think we are that far from it.

 

[igneousy2]

Why I belive that "getting parked" is just a scare tactic that we should ignore...

1. We are better off under the current contract in the long run then the TA.

2. The companies creditors and investors HATE unknown variables and as long as our contract is open with the threat of future labor strife as well as unknown cost going forward lowers our credit worthiness and investment potential.

3. The company hates unknowns...it is far easier to run a business successfully (read - large bonuses for executives) if as many unknowns as possible are made known. Look at how much money we spend on call options on oil futures just to know what we are going to pay for our fuel.

I would even go so far as to say that the company is under more pressure to get a deal then we are.

Anyway, vote no

 

[Wally]

Line. Crossed.

Fubi, you had some good retorts. Then you went off the deep end.

Fubi, totally out of line. Be a man and apologize.

Agreed

 

[eskimopilot]

"Yeah, he sure has. Every furloughed pilot is getting what, $40 a month from his "fund". Since there are no accounting controls no one knows how much he's taking in, do they? Maybe he should be know as "Scam King.""

Disgusting statement. Do you have ANY proof of your accusation? If not I suggest a public apology is in order.
I also don't agree with everything SK says, but a difference of opinion would never lead me to a conclusion like yours.
Until I get information from our Union on the status of the Furloughed Pilot Fund I will continue to contribute to SK.

 

[SneakyJake]

I am in line with Igneous's comments about the retirement. I still am not sure why the TA was put to us with loss of the A plan. It seems like a deal breaker for some. I don't think they will be surprised when it is put back to the table. The retirement is not a bottom line for the company and I am sure they are prepared to reopen that section.