Originally Posted by
AxlF16
There are few 'knowns', so assumptions are required. My rationale assumes a cost of 1-2 years time to giving away/selling leverage. I think that's fair. To your point that the companies financial position may turn south between now and a normal Sec6 CBA, I suppose you could weight that as a cost to voting NO, though I don't think it would change my calculus much.
With only 3 legacies, I don't expect to have a credible strike threat anytime soon. If that's true, we'll need some other way to compel the company to reach an agreement. Without leverage we will negotiate for a LONG time. I'm not counting on being able to play the NMB like we did last time....and even if we could, I don't think we'd get the contract we deserve. In this environment it'll be absolutely critical to use every piece of leverage to its potential. That means we have to identify it, correctly value it, and effectively use it at the negotiating table. We can't afford to squander any leverage...and this expedited timeline already raises red flags.
I agree with everything you've said. There is a very complicated cost risk analysis that needs to be done. SWA turned down their TA after waiting 3 years. And that was an OBVIOUS move. It was horrible. Now they are looking at spring before they even MEET again. So nothing for probably another year minimum. What's strange is that in the BEST negotiating environment in recent history DAL and SWA have been handed DOG TA's. This suggests to me that leverage is a fickle beast not easily understood. Let's say in 2012 SWA had been offered a 25% pay raise over 2 years, which would have brought them to 2014. They negotiate from there and it takes another 3 years. At least they would have been +25% EACH YEAR for those 3 years. Plus any future raise % would have been on top of that already higher number.
Of course that's the easy part. Pay is always straight forward. It's the details in the rest of the deal that's the rub. It's an interesting exercise but it sounds like it's dead anyway so not important.
Definitely agree that assumptions need to me made to play oh your scenario. But to be fair you should make the same assumption for both situations. A 1-3 year TA negotiation time should be applied to both scenarios. Not really level if you're saying a no extension section 6 is 1-3 years but if we get an extension then section 6 after would be 6+ years from now. It should be 3-5. Just need to stick to the same assumption of time in either scenario to compare accurately