Originally Posted by
FreightDawgyDog
The way I see this is it was a win-win for the company either way the vote went. When we passed the LOA in the first place it didn't matter to them as that was what they wanted. If we gave up 3% this time, they don't have to pay it and then we have to negotiate for it all over again and try and get a "signing bonus" for the next contract. Didn't the NC put out a message line last year about the value of money now instead of later? If we vote for it they don't have to enter serious contract talks for another year. The question we as a group had to answer was which lose-lose for us was worse once the LOA passed last year. I think we got it right personally by taking the money now and starting to build the unity we will need when we enter Sec 6.
FDD, the future value of money is a good metric to have made this decision, though not the only metric. Quality of life issues and safety are also important. But given the later, I still think the future value of the 3% will fall short of the monetary improvements that could have been negotiated at an earlier date. In other words, the 3% falls far short of the monetary improvements to the individual pilot that are now put off for yet another year. Discount those costs to present day dollars and I think it is obvious why the company offered this route. It forestalls the large costs they will bear for the improvements we are seeking. On top of that is the ever tightening grip of the Optimizer, getting more work out of us for the same pay and curtailing quality of life. I know many pilots who now use sick leave as a fatigue mitigating issue between trips.
I don't understand how taking the 3% suddenly builds unity for the now forestalled section 6 negotiations. I think it communicates to the company that for the most part, we are happy with the status quo. That doesn't appear to me to make for a foundational argument that we need some serious improvements going forward.