Originally Posted by
Roadkill
This analysis you've posted is pretty interesting and seems to cover the options of this decision... but you massively mislead our downside by not extrapolating a legal contract clause into the future, "What if the company decided to take advantage of this wording, could they?".
Your straw man you set up to slay is "15 pax a day", as if that's all this is about on the downside, or COULD EVER BE--that's our choice, 15 pax. Come on, that's not the downside of this at all! It's the contract language POTENTIAL for 1500 pax a day of code shares if the door is inappropriately opened and protections to stop it are removed. You seriously can't be this unable to look towards potential adversity from the PILOTs perspective... I know you certainly can see the downside of the company's potential decisions, you present them to us non-stop.
You do this "set up a bogus strawman and argue against it" style of argument quite often alfa... I like your intellectual slant, but you NEVER PRESENT BOTH POTENTIAL SIDES! You are 20% of the reason I don't trust my union-- you rarely argue the non-company side and play devil's advocate, or start by taking the "pro-pilot cautious company disbelief until proven otherwise and still ensure protection against unanticipated intentional full exploitation of the wording by the company" position-- MY BARGAINING AGENT's obvious and fiduciary position! Every time I read your posts, and I've come to understand you are affiliated with my union somehow, I feel like I'm reading some company-propagandist whose intent is to talk me into whatever they are selling. Seriously every time I read you, I think "Well, that guy sounds quite smart... I sure wish he were working FOR me, instead of for the company, I wonder how they managed to buy him off, maybe they got his kids hostage?" Gosh how I wish you'd apply your mind and intellect to presenting the data from a "pilot's first if there is conflict" perspective, instead of a "company first, and pilot's will probably benefit from that" perspective.
Just my opinion, but you do spend a lot of time here presenting the ALPA case, so I thought you might like to hear a data point from a receptive listener on how your postings come through. No insult intended, truly, I read everything you post... I just never feel you have MY back in mind. Hope I'm wrong and just don't understand enough.
I guess you are using the "with all due respect" argument. You say no insult intended and then rail about how I have been bought off by the company. With all due respect.
The fact is that any military unit spends a great deal of time trying to think like their opponent. Any sports team spends a great deal of time trying to think like their opponent. Are they cowards and turncoats also? This argument is seriously one of the dumbest I have read anytime.
There are two signatures on any new LOA, ours and the company's. If you don't consider what the company is thinking then you will fail every time. It sounds sexy to say "Give me, give me, I demand this and that." and then when you fail at least you can pat your own back and crow for the crowd. If you actually want to accomplish something, you have to consider their point of view.
In the company's point of view, they see 15 pax a day. This provision in the PWA has been there for years and it's 15 not 1500, that is reality. So when they are considering giving away something, their return on investment is viewed as 15 pax a day. That is how they view it and no amount of personal attacks on your part is going to change it. If you want their signature on a document then you have to consider what they want.
Now, considering that and accepting that are two different things. What they would ultimately want is for us to do away with all scope restrictions and let them do whatever they want. So from their point of view, any scope restriction is simply an impediment to them executing their business plan. As such, they will weigh the cost/benefit ratio of accepting a new scope restriction within that context.
Our point of view is that we would like the entire world to be covered under our contract and we would like all flying done in this universe to be done by Delta pilots. So we have the company that wants no scope restrictions and the pilots that want universal scope. At some point those opposite points have to be reconciled.
All along the way, each side makes these decisions about how much leverage they have to achieve their goals and what the costs are to achieve those goals. If you just assume that the company has worked themselves into a corner and they will pay an unlimited price to get out of that corner, then just tell the MEC to take a break because you will never get a deal.
So in the end you have to assess how each side views the costs and benefits of the current contract and any proposed changes. Some reps take the easy way out and just blow smoke up your skirt and tell you what you want to hear. If I tell you what I think is true, then you label me a turncoat. Maybe you just want to be lied to, who knows.
In the end, you have to weigh the cost/benefits of each path. In this LOA I see the advantage to a deal is gaining a backstop block hour protection in the Pacific. The disadvantage is letting Delta continue to code share with 15 pax a day out of NRT. Which of those is more important to you?
The company sees the advantage in gaining the revenue from 15 pax a day out of NRT. They see the disadvantage in ceding control over capacity in the Pacific. Which of those is more important them? Next, at what point will they tip over and choose the path of no deal? They have that option and if you assume they don't then you are just lying to yourself. So in determining the tipping point, should you listen to your negotiators, who have lived this agreement for months or just an Internet blowhard that makes up whatever scenario suits them best? Don't forget that there are professional negotiators with decades of experience also in the room.
To me, the option of blustery and bloviation is complete surrender. It might make the bloviator look good to the forum crowd, but you have doomed your pilots to status quo. If you don't believe me, then look at USAPA. The last contract change at US Airways was in 2004. Look at their contract. But hey, they talk a good game. Maybe for you fighting words and reps making themselves look good give you all the compensation you need. I prefer cash myself. Who is delivering the cash and who is delivering the bull crap by the boat load?