Originally Posted by MarineGrunt

Without scope, I'd take that deal if the rates are adjustable in 2016...

Originally Posted by inline five

I'm still very confused on this whole "burn the house" mentality.

Either we get a deal done here or we go to arbitration.

If we go to arbitration, everyone pretty much knows what the outcome is.

The issue with the companies proposal is scope. There are some minor small things they also want, like night currency slots, which IMO would be a good use of that sim slot rather than have it go unused, and in comparison we get a fairly large raise NOW. This amounts to tens of thousands of dollars for the senior folks, and not an insignificant amount for the junior guys.

It sounds like the APA is approaching this like normal negotiations, when in fact it's not. Just like the FA's, if the company says no dice or we say no dice, we go back to what was originally agreed to. Not a bad deal, but assuming scope is a moot point in the offer I'm just not seeing how what we are getting is bad. We are not in section 6 negotiations now, we don't have any legal power to strike if we don't get what we want.

Originally Posted by justjack

Parker would rather get a vote and be able to make some sort of positive PR announcement. However, he will be just fine with arbitration and he is not in the least worried about how unhappy the employees are. Sure, it would be great if it didn't cost much. The $$$ amount, that employee happiness is worth to Parker is very low - not zero, but very low. APA can threaten and even follow though with the threats and in the end- somewhere down the road, Parker might regret what he is doing now. But that day is sometime well into the future. Parker has nothing to work with in his management repertoire other than this dance. Union buster Glass is here to be his choreographer. The best thing that we can do for ourselves is understand exactly what the MOU spells out. I hope that we get some good advice on this so that I can make a prudent decision this time when I vote.

Originally Posted by justjack

It's troubling to hear people talk about fairness and how much the company is making when it comes to Parker. Parker will pay exactly what he is forced to pay in writing - plus a little to save him from the aggravation of so may ****ed off employees and a bit of good PR. I don't think arbitrators are going to look at what the company is making and how unfair it is to labor. I think that they will arbitrate what the parties agreed to in the MOU. If I am wrong about what happens in arbitration OR what is in the MOU, PLEASE correct me.

Originally Posted by inline five

Personally, I think expecting large increases in this round is futile. You have to be able to look from the other side as well - if they don't like it, they can just say no and we get what we've already got.

If the APA fails to come to an agreement, would you be happy with the result? Because that is where we are heading.

Personally, I'd rather have the increases now, as long as scope is off the table.

Your issue, the work rules, are something that is most likely well outside of the discussions taking place now. That is for 2019. Unfortunately.

The APA contract has always been weak in the soft pay category, America West had good soft pay but bad overall pay, as did US, after the two bankruptcies. It's amazing to me that many commuters have better language than AA's contract. I could credit 150 hours at my old commuter without hardly trying.

Hopefully the company can take the money they are making and position us for a good long term future. Hopefully they don't blow it on things like stock buy backs and uniform parties (oh wait...).

Originally Posted by eaglefly

Welcome aboard. Don't worry........there's a decent chance you wont have to worry about it. REMEMBER, health care is a variable (that's exploding UPWARD right now) and pay rates are fixed. Arbitration will mean it will get pushed aside, because if they want it, they'll have to PAY US for it (which should be computed on a variable scale to compensate for changes). We have to make sure its TRUE valuation is considered. That alone could mean substantial increases in pay rates to maintain "cost-neutral".

I wonder if they asked for all their initial proposal wants, how much our rates would REALLY have to change upwards to maintain cost-neutral ?

Again, I'm starting to warm to the idea of just taking the MOU/MTA pay adjustment with no alterations to present benefits and work rules in arbitration, hold my nose (among other things) and let Parker make a go out of a larger version of the old AA.

Any reserve pilots out there ?

* we all will likely be at some point.

Is it worth another $10/hour to adjust your life to a two hour callout ?

How much does a crash pad, more out-of-pocket hotels (or move) cost ?

What if you live in base and it closes in a couple of years (heads up, westies)

Is quality of life more important then a few extra bucks ?

How about 10-15% less in pay, but you don't have a health care Sword of Damocles over your head (and your wallet) ?

Is that trade-off acceptable ?

Point is, there's a lot of questions about this and quite frankly I AGREE with Doug Parker in that arbitration ISN'T necessarily a bad thing for us. We also get predictability and won't needlessly have to give up as many things for Delta rates when correct valuation is factored in. ALL his initial contract wants I'm sure cannot be achieved in arbitration without busting a cost-neutral benchmark at even the initial proposals pay rate structure. His other error is that it wont cost him anything, but it will. It will cost him what he supposedly didn't want.....truly a "new" American Airlines. If he doesn't want that (he may not now, but he will later).

If Parker's not afraid of arbitration, neither should we be.