Originally Posted by Andy

The pie is worth X. Even the ALPA negotiators will tell you that. I understand that the negotiators will try to get more pie, but which flavor of more pie is best to go for once the two sides are 'close'? Which benefit? Or simply more pay?

There absolutely is horse trading on improvements. It's ALPA negotiators' job to find which combination yields the best overall compensation package from the company. It's the company's job to get a new contract passed by the rank and file at the least cost to the company.

Here's the rub with benefits. The company generally places a higher cost on benefits than pilots. And each pilot will have a different value for each benefit. Does a senior lineholder care about reserve rules?

Pay vs work rules is not defeatist; it's reality. The company isn't going to offer us $1000/hr and also the top benefit package in the industry. It doesn't work that way. Benefits cost money and it's all part of our total compensation package. We can choke the goose to give us more golden eggs, but there is not an unlimited supply of golden eggs.

We'll all fill out ALPA contract surveys and both sides' negotiators will negotiate a new contract. That's about all we rank and file can do - fill out surveys on what's most important to us. It doesn't even matter that you think my view toward these negotiations is defeatist; I will have near zero influence on the outcome (the only minor impact I will have is filling out the contract survey).

Originally Posted by Andy

I only disagree with you on one point - that they ALWAYS end up spending more. If the negotiations are dragged out for an extended period and the economy tanks along with company profits, the company will likely end up walking back some union gains.

Along those same lines, I hate seeing negotiations drag on for a couple of years for just a few extra pennies.