Feb. PBS Bid Awards - ASA

[Speedtape]

Dual Qual and the Cons

1. It's a pay cut. Everyone will be on the same pay rate. Overide for time in the seat, but not for vacation, training, and cancelled flights.

2. At Skywest, they have dual qual--but most pilots fly the same airplane all the time. The benefit is to the Company--a pay cut for all who are on the plane by palcing them at a lower pay rate.

3. Pairings will have pure flying. No one mixes the flying on a regular basis. That results in senior people always flying the 700/900 if they choose--and they will, to mitigate the pay cut.

4. Higher Exposure to Unsats on checkrides--especially with the new AQP on top of everything else. We have people who are challenged to pass check rides on one airplane--much less required to be qualified on 3.

5. Protecting your Training record--hiring at some majors will start soon. So you really want to put a future job in jeopardy with a requirement to know and be checked on 3 aircraft?

6. Major differences that would be a challenge in actual operation--If you have flown both the 200 and the 700, you know the issue. The common type failed the first few times in certification, because the differences far exceeded the acceptance level. After a little paper pushing and some political pressure, it came right under the wire at about 137 differences. Nothing really changed.

7. Safety--is it safer to operate them separately? The answer to that question is clearly yes! Ask any instructor. There are major differences in the bleed air system that confuse even the experts when they have to fly both.

8. Exposure to more IROP flying--Pilots will have to fly the downgrades and substitutions, whereas today, you don't suffer those inconveniences.

9. Landing and configuration issues--there are major differences in visual perspective from each flight deck, and the 200 and the 700 land quite differently in flare and power management.

10. Diminishing fleet of 200s and growing fleet of 700s. This is the reality. In the future, there will be more 700/900 aircraft and less 200s. If fuel continues to increase, it is right around the corner forcing expedited retirement of the 200s. Mainline wants to reduce that fleet size. They will force it by continuing to reduce average stage length. Decreasing stage length decreases revenue in Fee for departurefor an aircraft that is already marginally profitable. Mainline knows this and they are going to put the squeeze on the Crj 200 operators. Soon, there will be more 700s than 200s. So let's vote all of ourselves a paycut. The early ATR pilots know all about an overide and how that works. Ask them. Once you vote your self a paycut and an overide, it will never go away until the last 200 leaves the property.

If you want to fly the 700, bid it. The legs are longer, the trips are better, the performance is better, and your job is much easier. Once you fly it, you will throw rocks at the 200. Accepting dual qual is fool's gold. Its all about lowering cost through one pay rate. It's not about having pilots flying both aircraft. Managment knows it's safer to keep the flying separate, and they can still do that, but sucker you into that by placing everyone on one payscale. In summary, they know what motivates pilots and how to create division within the pilot group with issues like these. Live and learn!

 

[resetjet]

Dual Qual and the Cons

1. It's a pay cut. Everyone will be on the same pay rate. Overide for time in the seat, but not for vacation, training, and cancelled flights.

2. At Skywest, they have dual qual--but most pilots fly the same airplane all the time. The benefit is to the Company--a pay cut for all who are on the plane by palcing them at a lower pay rate.

3. Pairings will have pure flying. No one mixes the flying on a regular basis. That results in senior people always flying the 700/900 if they choose--and they will, to mitigate the pay cut.

4. Higher Exposure to Unsats on checkrides--especially with the new AQP on top of everything else. We have people who are challenged to pass check rides on one airplane--much less required to be qualified on 3.

5. Protecting your Training record--hiring at some majors will start soon. So you really want to put a future job in jeopardy with a requirement to know and be checked on 3 aircraft?

6. Major differences that would be a challenge in actual operation--If you have flown both the 200 and the 700, you know the issue. The common type failed the first few times in certification, because the differences far exceeded the acceptance level. After a little paper pushing and some political pressure, it came right under the wire at about 137 differences. Nothing really changed.

7. Safety--is it safer to operate them separately? The answer to that question is clearly yes! Ask any instructor. There are major differences in the bleed air system that confuse even the experts when they have to fly both.

8. Exposure to more IROP flying--Pilots will have to fly the downgrades and substitutions, whereas today, you don't suffer those inconveniences.

9. Landing and configuration issues--there are major differences in visual perspective from each flight deck, and the 200 and the 700 land quite differently in flare and power management.

10. Diminishing fleet of 200s and growing fleet of 700s. This is the reality. In the future, there will be more 700/900 aircraft and less 200s. If fuel continues to increase, it is right around the corner forcing expedited retirement of the 200s. Mainline wants to reduce that fleet size. They will force it by continuing to reduce average stage length. Decreasing stage length decreases revenue in Fee for departurefor an aircraft that is already marginally profitable. Mainline knows this and they are going to put the squeeze on the Crj 200 operators. Soon, there will be more 700s than 200s. So let's vote all of ourselves a paycut. The early ATR pilots know all about an overide and how that works. Ask them. Once you vote your self a paycut and an overide, it will never go away until the last 200 leaves the property.

If you want to fly the 700, bid it. The legs are longer, the trips are better, the performance is better, and your job is much easier. Once you fly it, you will throw rocks at the 200. Accepting dual qual is fool's gold. Its all about lowering cost through one pay rate. It's not about having pilots flying both aircraft. Managment knows it's safer to keep the flying separate, and they can still do that, but sucker you into that by placing everyone on one payscale. In summary, they know what motivates pilots and how to create division within the pilot group with issues like these. Live and learn!

+1 Couldn't agree more strongly!

 

[COOPERVANE]

Why are we even discussing dual qual? What did I miss?

It think it is a VERY bad idea!!!

 

[crj567]

How about if we just sell XJT and grow internally! Then you don't have to worry about seniority integration or all the other boat anchor issues they bring with them. They need us, we don't need them!

My God!

What kind of dreadful substance led to the kind of brain damage responsible for this moron's conclusions?

Speedtape- Those hazmat labels are really not just friendly suggestions. Contact poison control before it's too late.

 

[LazyLightnin']

Mr. White is right. I mean, speedtape is right. "Dual qual is not good at all"

 

[Speedtape]

Your management didn't seem to think so.

uh-huh! (clearing my throat) You mean OUR management. Come on, you can say it after me, "Our Management." Your old management is history and mostly resposnsible for your financial UNHEALTH! But only mostly.

Our Management (now, yours and mine) bought your old company because in their discovery process a couple of years ago, they got to see the books. The deal conveniently failed, partially because of your pilot group demands, at the time, and Inc. walked away with about $5 million in guarantees in their pocket. But more importantly, valuable financial knowledge was gained after accessing and assessing the financials. This motivated them to come back for a second run, at the right time, to buy at a much lower price--mostly thanks to the help of your pilot group. If he hasn't said it, Jerry thanks you! In fact, after discounts for cash on hand, your old company was bought for about $73 million--a fireside steal!

Now, not to lecture, because you will have to put it together. You have been bought--cheaply, if I hadn't already stated it. The grand idea is to combine XJet and ASA, but even at this point, that can change. There are still many options on the table if the process becomes too costly and difficult. If this JNC beomes too far reaching in their demands, the "grand idea" may no longer be grand. Inc. will back up, take another look at it and employ Plan B. By the way, Plan B is already on the table and ready to execute, if necessary. And most likely, there is a Plan C. These folks are way ahead of the game. Nothing is a given at this point, so don't think that if this JNC goes too far in it's demands, that there will be be a JNC. It will go up in smoke--poof!

If you doubt my conjecture, just recall Jerry's stated position when you guys demanded one list, and challenged him to a legal battle. He simply told you, if you persisted in your demands, he would not fight you. And what did that mean and did that get you anywhere? If your group, and the JNC puts forth far-reaching demands, then he will simply dismiss you again, and maybe this time on a final basis. He does not need to keep your group intact at all costs. He and his team know exactly where the line is, and Plan B will surgically dismiss your group for the final time. He will not tarry in his efforts, and there will be no turning back if that decision has to be made. He could easily part his purchase out, recover most of the purchase outlay, and then proceed full speed ahead acquiring all your business.

And, by the way, don't count on the ASA pilots to come to your aid, because there is far more opportunity without you, than with you, and with alot less hassle! I speak for many! We will not stand by and allow your group to sink our Company! Be reasonable, and we can all benefit. Be unreasonable, and we will respond like Tonto, when he and the Lone Ranger were surrounded by the Apaches! The Lone Ranger looked over at Tonto, and said, "Tonto, what do we do now?" Tonto abruptly replied, "What do you mean WE, Kemo Sabe?" Tonto immediately put his hand up to his mouth, and made his loudest Indian War Whoop! "WooWooWooWoo!"

 

[COOPERVANE]

Good night drunky!!!

 

[Speedtape]

My God!

What kind of dreadful substance led to the kind of brain damage responsible for this moron's conclusions?

Speedtape- Those hazmat labels are really not just friendly suggestions. Contact poison control before it's too late.

Higher level thinking--that is, higher level than yours!

 

[Speedtape]

You are correct about the 6 days of transition. That part of our contract downright sucks. I'm not totally against PBS though although it'll take a lot to convince me.
We had 3 days and that sucked. 6 days would suck exponentially. I'm glad you have an open mind. If your job was on the line, or you get PBS, what would you choose! Because, that will be your decision.

I don't know about this ASA unprofitable thing, not that it makes a difference when we all make money for the same CEO, BOD, and shareholders. And last time I checked Inc made money and had $800M in the bank.
And they made it how? Making a profit matters. They have $800M in the bank, and they want more. You and I want stand in the way of that happening.

As for dual qual, I certainly see that as a strong possibility considering our existing rates. It could be employed in a positive way.
Your existing rates? And can you explain your concept? And just how can it be employed in a positive way?



But what if our system is better? Then the majority of your pilots would approve our system. I sincerely dont mind being separate at this point rather than take any concession, but again, that's just me.
We want be separate. We will either be joined together at reasonable costs, or your group will not survive. Given the choice, would you rather have a job with slight adjustments for reasonable costs, or be without a job because you held the line? What pays more? Even a caveman can figure that one out.



Yup and that is why I keep an open mind about it. Will you do the same about our system? As for remaining competitive, once JA and company decide to save money by not operating two separate airlines with two sets of almost everything, then I might consider that argument. Until then, he can go pound sand!
He has the money, leverage and will, if necessary, to crush you like a peanut. He does not need you on unreasonable terms. He will determine the reasonable part and the terms. I have read your agreement! Ours is superior in many ways! We don't want your system, and that is not the choice! The choice is a combined, reasonable agreement, that is cost competitive with Skywest Airlines. Within Inc., that is who your competition is. Create a gulf of disparity, if we even got that far, and "WE" will become the incredible shrinking airline!



He didn't get what he wanted two years ago. He made many concessions on the second deal.
He got what he wanted 2 years ago. He wanted the $5 million for the failed transaction, an examination of the financials, and a second run at you at a lower cost. All things considered, after a discount of the $5 million gained, and your cash on hand, he bought your Company for about $68 million. ASA, alone, made that much profit the first year we were bought! What concessions did he make? Hahaha



They can't do that per the transition and process agreement.

Has it been signed? I guarantee his lawyers are smarter than our lawyers. There will be loopholes. Have you read it? I haven't but having at least a 3rd grade edumocation, I will reserve judgement until I do! Any party can break any contract. It is just a piece of paper, not always having legal standing.

My best example for illustration would be your recent scope and merger language. How did that work out for you? Yeah, I want that contract! Not!

 

[dojetdriver]

uh-huh! (clearing my throat) You mean OUR management. Come on, you can say it after me, "Our Management." Your old management is history and mostly resposnsible for your financial UNHEALTH! But only mostly.

Are you really this stupid? When he said "your management", he meant prior to the current situation.

Our Management (now, yours and mine) bought your old company because in their discovery process a couple of years ago, they got to see the books. The deal conveniently failed, partially because of your pilot group demands, at the time, and Inc. walked away with about $5 million in guarantees in their pocket. But more importantly, valuable financial knowledge was gained after accessing and assessing the financials. This motivated them to come back for a second run, at the right time, to buy at a much lower price--mostly thanks to the help of your pilot group. If he hasn't said it, Jerry thanks you! In fact, after discounts for cash on hand, your old company was bought for about $73 million--a fireside steal!

Holy cow! Where does Jerry sell those knee pads? I believe it was more around 8 million, but who's counting? Can you expand on the "mostly thanks to the help of your pilot group" part? The pilots, as well the other labor groups took healthy concessions. It had to do more with the way CAL squeezed XJT on the new CPA, NOT the pilots. But I'm sure you knew that.

Now, not to lecture, because you will have to put it together. You have been bought--cheaply, if I hadn't already stated it. The grand idea is to combine XJet and ASA, but even at this point, that can change. There are still many options on the table if the process becomes too costly and difficult. If this JNC beomes too far reaching in their demands, the "grand idea" may no longer be grand. Inc. will back up, take another look at it and employ Plan B. By the way, Plan B is already on the table and ready to execute, if necessary. And most likely, there is a Plan C. These folks are way ahead of the game. Nothing is a given at this point, so don't think that if this JNC goes too far in it's demands, that there will be be a JNC. It will go up in smoke--poof!

Really? You sit on the board? I'm sure it's true. Because the XJT part of the Inc could probably sold tomorrow for a pretty penny. There's so many other companies out there that would be willing to pay what Jerry would ask.

Use your melon dude. Jerry is too far in now to walk away.

If you doubt my conjecture, just recall Jerry's stated position when you guys demanded one list, and challenged him to a legal battle. He simply told you, if you persisted in your demands, he would not fight you.

Well, it sure was funny how he was hell bent sure that he found away around the scope. Only to reverse his position when that may have not been the case.

And what did that mean and did that get you anywhere? If your group, and the JNC puts forth far-reaching demands, then he will simply dismiss you again, and maybe this time on a final basis. He does not need to keep your group intact at all costs. He and his team know exactly where the line is, and Plan B will surgically dismiss your group for the final time. He will not tarry in his efforts, and there will be no turning back if that decision has to be made. He could easily part his purchase out, recover most of the purchase outlay, and then proceed full speed ahead acquiring all your business.

See above on this one.

And, by the way, don't count on the ASA pilots to come to your aid, because there is far more opportunity without you, than with you, and with alot less hassle! I speak for many! We will not stand by and allow your group to sink our Company! Be reasonable, and we can all benefit. Be unreasonable, and we will respond like Tonto, when he and the Lone Ranger were surrounded by the Apaches! The Lone Ranger looked over at Tonto, and said, "Tonto, what do we do now?" Tonto abruptly replied, "What do you mean WE, Kemo Sabe?" Tonto immediately put his hand up to his mouth, and made his loudest Indian War Whoop! "WooWooWooWoo!"

Really? If it came down to Jerry breaking off/selling/dismantling XJT, ASA pilots would suddenly have far more opportunity? Do tell, where would all this opportunity come from?

Put the beer down brotha'

I made you (and other ASA pilots) an offer a few weeks ago to compare head to head the ASA and XJT CBA's side by side. With specific reference to the hours of service, scheduling, and compensation sections. NONE of you have taken me up on that offer. You even boasted that the ASA contract was better than the XJT on just about every regard. I disagree, and the offer to compare still stands. So please, stop doing such a pi$$ poor job of representing what otherwise seems to be a fine bunch of pilots at ASA that most of us XJT'ers look forward to not only working with, but extracting the best parts of BOTH our CBA's moving forward with the merging process.

My best example for illustration would be your recent scope and merger language. How did that work out for you? Yeah, I want that contract! Not!

Would you like to have the XJT sick time accrual rate, 50 seat pay rates, scheduling, hours of service, 401K/B fund match, etc?

 

[crj567]

Higher level thinking--that is, higher level than yours!

On second thought:

Just go and stick your head right back into that jug-o-drain-cleaner. Let's see just how "high-level" your thinking can get.

-The gene pool will continue to do just fine without your input.

 

[the palm]

Yeah, WTF Speedtape. You went off the reservation tonight. You forget to log out of your account in the crew lounge?

 

[COOPERVANE]

Speedtape usually is level headed.

He MUST have forgotten to log out.

He does not speak for me. We don't need to be stirring the pot with our FELLOW CO-WORKERS!!!!

 

[dojetdriver]

Speedtape usually is level headed.

Although I've disagreed with some of his posts in the past, I've always thought he was level headed as well. For FI anyway. Except this time.

Maybe CA Tony got into his account. Kidding Tony, don't get the panties spun up.

 

[777forever]

Dual Qual and the Cons

1. It's a pay cut. Everyone will be on the same pay rate. Overide for time in the seat, but not for vacation, training, and cancelled flights.

You're assuming all dual qual has an override system. A blended rate that is higher than current 700/900 pay would not be a paycut.

2. At Skywest, they have dual qual--but most pilots fly the same airplane all the time. The benefit is to the Company--a pay cut for all who are on the plane by palcing them at a lower pay rate.

If the payrate is kept the same. We would be foolish to allow that. Dual Qual saves the company money, so some of that saving would have to go to the pilots (like it did with PBS) or the union would never consider it.

3. Pairings will have pure flying. No one mixes the flying on a regular basis. That results in senior people always flying the 700/900 if they choose--and they will, to mitigate the pay cut.

You're still assuming a pay cut. The union won't even discuss dual qual if a paycut is involved. Would we have PBS if a paycut was involved?

4. Higher Exposure to Unsats on checkrides--especially with the new AQP on top of everything else. We have people who are challenged to pass check rides on one airplane--much less required to be qualified on 3.

Strong contract language for training events in the Dual Qual LOA is a must to prevent this.

5. Protecting your Training record--hiring at some majors will start soon. So you really want to put a future job in jeopardy with a requirement to know and be checked on 3 aircraft?

Its not that difficult. More knowledge required. But that's one of the reasons why we need to be paid more and any kind of a paycut would be unacceptable

6. Major differences that would be a challenge in actual operation--If you have flown both the 200 and the 700, you know the issue. The common type failed the first few times in certification, because the differences far exceeded the acceptance level. After a little paper pushing and some political pressure, it came right under the wire at about 137 differences. Nothing really changed.

Overexaggeration. Skywest, Mesa, and PSA pilots have flown the 200 and 700 for years without any safety issues.

7. Safety--is it safer to operate them separately? The answer to that question is clearly yes! Ask any instructor. There are major differences in the bleed air system that confuse even the experts when they have to fly both.

Yes it is safer to operate than separately. It is also safer for me to lay in bed all day. Bleed air system was a bad example. On the 200 you learn how to switch the bleeds correctly, on the 700 you do nothing. What is operationally difficult about that?

8. Exposure to more IROP flying--Pilots will have to fly the downgrades and substitutions, whereas today, you don't suffer those inconveniences.

Yes, this is how the company would save money, which in turn will give the overall pilot group a bigger paycheck because of what I mentioned before, company giving part of its dual qual cost savings to the pilot group.

9. Landing and configuration issues--there are major differences in visual perspective from each flight deck, and the 200 and the 700 land quite differently in flare and power management.

When I was an instructor I flew a seminole with one student, then a 172 with the next. Major differences in landing with those too. Skywest, PSA, Mesa and I completely forgot Jazz, have proven that the 200 and 700 can be flown by one pilot group safely.

10. Diminishing fleet of 200s and growing fleet of 700s. This is the reality. In the future, there will be more 700/900 aircraft and less 200s. If fuel continues to increase, it is right around the corner forcing expedited retirement of the 200s. Mainline wants to reduce that fleet size. They will force it by continuing to reduce average stage length. Decreasing stage length decreases revenue in Fee for departurefor an aircraft that is already marginally profitable. Mainline knows this and they are going to put the squeeze on the Crj 200 operators. Soon, there will be more 700s than 200s. So let's vote all of ourselves a paycut. The early ATR pilots know all about an overide and how that works. Ask them. Once you vote your self a paycut and an overide, it will never go away until the last 200 leaves the property.

Speedtape, Dual Qual does not equal Override, nor does Dual Qual equal Paycut. A blended payrate for all that is higher than current 700/900 pay, heck just make it higher than pre-concession XJT 145 pay, would be a nice bump in pay for all. Company saves money, we get more dinero, everybody is happy, just like PBS

If you want to fly the 700, bid it. The legs are longer, the trips are better, the performance is better, and your job is much easier. Once you fly it, you will throw rocks at the 200. Accepting dual qual is fool's gold. Its all about lowering cost through one pay rate. It's not about having pilots flying both aircraft. Managment knows it's safer to keep the flying separate, and they can still do that, but sucker you into that by placing everyone on one payscale. In summary, they know what motivates pilots and how to create division within the pilot group with issues like these.

The 200 is more work for less pay. No doubt about that.

Live and learn!

Live and learn!

Exactly, like PBS, lets educate pilots on all possible ways to implement Dual Qual, not just the negatives or the stereotypes(CAL=PBS or SKW=Dual Qual)

 

[asa rat]

Why are we even discussing dual qual? What did I miss?

It think it is a VERY bad idea!!!

THANK YOU!! I tried to plant that idea three pages ago, clearly without success.

 

[701EV]

no dual qual!!!

 

[Nevets]

You are correct about the 6 days of transition. That part of our contract downright sucks. I'm not totally against PBS though although it'll take a lot to convince me.
We had 3 days and that sucked. 6 days would suck exponentially. I'm glad you have an open mind. If your job was on the line, or you get PBS, what would you choose! Because, that will be your decision.

Let me be clear, this job is not my life! I will simply go do something else. I will be just fine.

I don't know about this ASA unprofitable thing, not that it makes a difference when we all make money for the same CEO, BOD, and shareholders. And last time I checked Inc made money and had $800M in the bank.
And they made it how? Making a profit matters. They have $800M in the bank, and they want more. You and I want stand in the way of that happening.

That was a response to someone saying ASA is now unprofitable. Last I checked, Inc makes money. Fact as I already stated is that we make money for one CEO, one BOD, and one set of shareholders. I know how they make a profit, that was not in question. RTFP

As for dual qual, I certainly see that as a strong possibility considering our existing rates. It could be employed in a positive way.
Your existing rates? And can you explain your concept? And just how can it be employed in a positive way?

What I meant is that our compensation on our ERJ is almost what you get on the 900, so any raise on the ERJ would mean an automatic raise on all your aircraft. Therefore I can see a blended rate and that would be more reason for dual qual.

But what if our system is better? Then the majority of your pilots would approve our system. I sincerely dont mind being separate at this point rather than take any concession, but again, that's just me.
We want be separate. We will either be joined together at reasonable costs, or your group will not survive. Given the choice, would you rather have a job with slight adjustments for reasonable costs, or be without a job because you held the line? What pays more? Even a caveman can figure that one out.

Like I said already, I will be fine whatever happens. I will go do something else. My life is not this job. I already took concessions and I rather not do it again, even if it means I lose my job.

Yup and that is why I keep an open mind about it. Will you do the same about our system? As for remaining competitive, once JA and company decide to save money by not operating two separate airlines with two sets of almost everything, then I might consider that argument. Until then, he can go pound sand!
He has the money, leverage and will, if necessary, to crush you like a peanut. He does not need you on unreasonable terms. He will determine the reasonable part and the terms. I have read your agreement! Ours is superior in many ways! We don't want your system, and that is not the choice! The choice is a combined, reasonable agreement, that is cost competitive with Skywest Airlines. Within Inc., that is who your competition is. Create a gulf of disparity, if we even got that far, and "WE" will become the incredible shrinking airline!

He seems to need us more than we do him. He has been the one who constantly has been trying to get into CALs bed. Which part of our agreement have you read? Can you tell me about the phase 1, phase 2, ILIW, SLIW, etc? The choice is pay up or keep us separate. I have absolutely NO PROBLEM whatsoever with being separate. I do not want to come down to the level of Skywest airlines. I want to bring them and you up to ours! My unions job is not to worry about shrinking airlines. That is managements job. If they want to make our airline bigger, they can easily combine us with another airline with over 200 aircraft already to go.

He didn't get what he wanted two years ago. He made many concessions on the second deal.
He got what he wanted 2 years ago. He wanted the $5 million for the failed transaction, an examination of the financials, and a second run at you at a lower cost. All things considered, after a discount of the $5 million gained, and your cash on hand, he bought your Company for about $68 million. ASA, alone, made that much profit the first year we were bought! What concessions did he make? Hahaha

They wanted to operate 3 separate airlines and implement 16% concessions. Now they conceded at least merging us with ASA and having to negotiate a joint contract under section 6. HUGE concessions from what they originally wanted.

They can't do that per the transition and process agreement.

Has it been signed? I guarantee his lawyers are smarter than our lawyers. There will be loopholes. Have you read it? I haven't but having at least a 3rd grade edumocation, I will reserve judgement until I do! Any party can break any contract. It is just a piece of paper, not always having legal standing.

My best example for illustration would be your recent scope and merger language. How did that work out for you? Yeah, I want that contract! Not!

Fair enough, although I think that the failure of that section of our contract had more to do with the resolve of our MEC than the language in the contract.

 

[dojetdriver]

Fair enough, although I think that the failure of that section of our contract had more to do with the lack of resolve of our MEC than the language in the contract.

Fixed it for ya

Like I said already, I will be fine whatever happens. I will go do something else. My life is not this job. I already took concessions and I rather not do it again, even if it means I lose my job.

I can't help but chuckle at this one. Remember when LOA9 was going on, and many (like myself) took the line of thinking you are here? Many that had ALREADY been through the process multiple time in our careers? And I specifically remember you coming down on me pretty hard for it. Does it finally make sense now why we had that point of view?

 

[Nevets]

Fixed it for ya



I can't help but chuckle at this one. Remember when LOA9 was going on, and many (like myself) took the line of thinking you are here? Many that had ALREADY been through the process multiple time in our careers? And I specifically remember you coming down on me pretty hard for it. Does it finally make sense now why we had that point of view?

I understood that you had already taken concessions...at another job. To me that had no bearing on whether we should have taken concessions here, at that time. To me it was never a choice between whether we take concessions or we go BK. To me it was more philosophical. There were no guarantees either way that vote went down. To me it was a debate of do we keep our pay and see what happens or do we take less than a 7% hit and give our management one last chance at making a run at it (of course with some caveats, ie all the letters that went along with that LOA). To me, no side is wrong but I personally thought that we had a better chance by agreeing with the LOA as a whole. But I do think there is an argument you can make that is unprovable that we would have been better off voting it down.

Now go ahead and tell me how I misunderstood what you said or that I didn't get the point.

By the way, thanks for the correction.