Originally Posted by Sink r8

I think part of the problem is that we're ignoring the environment around us. The only way a company will grant more than it can "afford" is if the competitive landscape requires it, i.e. if competitors are stuck doing same. When we negotiated C2K, don't forget that the bag sickers all said "United Plus". When we negotiated the 777 rate, we also traded 3B6 (I think that was the right section) for it, i.e. we waved our leverage to do hold up operation of a new aircraft type in the future. And the 777 numbers were so few, that the rate could have been $500, without materially affecting the contract.

Since then, we've seen that pilot groups will go through any length to keep a company afloat, because our seniority is not portable, which tilts the equation further to the company's favor.

Now, I do agree with you that there is something distasteful in the continuous "what are you willing to give up for it" talk, which is another way to say it's impossible to achieve more. And we all can guess how a defeatist attitude at the start would affect the result of any negotiation...

Personally, I think we would gain much more if we could alter the environment in a way that makes pilot costs a constant across the industry. When I dream, I see a future where ALPA would simply be an exclusive crew-leasing company to the airlines, and pilots would be no more tied to a carrier than a plumber to your personal sink. I also see much to be gained by controlling the supply of pilots by maintaining higher barriers to entry (i.e. advocating for higher and higher certification requirements, etc.).

When I'm not dreaming, and I look at this industry, the one we actually operate in, I want a negotiating philosophy that's somewhere between the debilitating and lame "no, we can't", and the unenforceable "we want". As I said before, I'd rather simply dial in on a logical place where we should be, considering the profitability of the company, but without regard to the other groups. In other words, if DALPA could articulate clearlly where the "sweet-spot" that doesn't quite kill off the goose, I'd sign up for that. Stated yet differently, if we could articulate that the company is good for X millions/year more (comfortably or not), and we could back up that number, I would then expect polling to discuss the group's priorites in how to distribute it, and then we spool up the Strike Committee, work the press to pretend we have the right to strike, tire the owners, and get to where we rightfully need to be.