Originally Posted by
Zman81
You guys will be disappointed if you think an mediator is going to let that demand fly. Yes we believe the 737 should pay wide body pay. He/she will be like ok since your unrealistic we are going to throw you on ice for the next X amount of days. Which actually happens quite regularly during airline negotiations. This thing is going to go to an impass. One of the sides will file for mediation (usually the labor group). Then they will go through all the previous steps that they agreed to till finally the items that they haven’t. The mediator will try to bring both sides to an agreement. If they can’t well their is 3 things a mediator can do. Place the negotiations on ice/freeze, release for self help (strike), or a binding agreement both sides agree to that arbitrator draws. You will see stuff that is not industry average fixed!, you will see our pro’s in our contract continue, you will see retro, then for pay if we are the first ones outta the gate expect to see a bump up of 15-20% raise, with yearly %’s going out about 5 years. It’s the same theme at every single airline during every contract cycle. With the exception of Spirit cause the mediator felt that the company was being unrealistic.
Uh, this is not at all how the RLA works. The mediator, by definition does not "let" anything happen or prevent anything. A mediator is just that, a mediator. They are there at the request of one or both sides to help guide and temper the negotiations.
They can put negotiations on "ice", but if the sides want to meet anyway, they can. There's nothing binding about mediation, even their one true function, which is to declare an impasse, because that can be overruled to a certain extent by congress and the president.
The only thing that matters when trying to make negotiations productive is the logic and reason behind your argument. And there are MULTIPLE arguments for widebody pay rates. We can argue:
1: we're competing for the same 5k applicants that the legacies are competing for. Combined, the big 4 have announced plans to hire more than 5k this year alone. Therefore, we need pay to be equivalent with the legacies, who do happen to have widebody pay, otherwise, we may be the ones who are left with the hiring deficit.
2: widebody pay is largely based on potential revenue generation. First off, this is an antiquated, and I would even say irrelevant, metric with modern contracts, because of one simple contractual benefit: rigs. Widebody pilots at legacies do not block the same number as their pay check. For that matter, neither do we. But even if we take potential revenue generation per pilot at face value, the POTENTIAL for revenue generation is much higher for two pilots flying 9 flights on a 3 day is higher than the three (or four) pilots flying a widebody over the pond and back over a 3 day trip. Two key factors that people always forget in this calculation are that it's the POTENTIAL for revenue generation and the additional pilot usually required for widebody ops. Fare cost is irrelevant in this argument. Should a Norwegian 787 pilot make less than a United 787 pilot? Or for that matter, should a Frontier pilot make less than a SWA pilot? It's purely butts in seats and the amount of flying you do.
3: the job is functionally the same no matter the size of the airplane, and, in fact, SWA already has an established history of paying a higher rate for a much smaller airplane. The 200/500 were 30% smaller than the 800, with the larger airplane being the controlling rate. That same ratio, applied to an 800 the opposite way, equate to it being ok for the 800 and an airplane with with 250 seats to be on the same pay rate, again with the larger airplane being the controlling rate.
Bottom line, you get what you negotiate. The mediator and the company can think whatever they want. The proof will be in the pudding if we're unable to adequately attract candidates. If we don't get a contract or get put on "ice", oh well. We will get a contract or get off ice eventually. It's up to our members and their elected representatives to decide just how long we're willing to wait, for how much of a raise we're willing to hold out for, and how much we can get to compensate us for the fact that we had to wait. This all comes with the caveat that waiting does have inherent risks and consequences both for us and the company. Negotiating higher rates can also drive a change in the airline's business model. It is up to the collective bargaining agent, the company, and the membership to determine if a rate (or overall contract) will change the business model, and to decide as to whether or not the risk of any potential model changes are worth whatever item(s) that have been negotiated.
And for the love of GOD can we please stop with this notion that we can get a contract imposed on us with binding arbitration?! Binding arbitration can ONLY be imposed if BOTH sides agree to submit to it. I'm sure I won't be the only person who will pull out my pitchfork if ANYBODY in swapa votes to submit to binding arbitration.
In the end, the only thing that matters is that you get what you negotiate and agree to. It is up to the membership, and the membership alone, to decide what they're willing to vote to accept.