The mediators were never going to release you because you agreed to binding arbitration.

Do you think any company wants to negotiate with its labor groups In a good economy..... it leads to higher labor costs. The main reasons they do is because they want avoid labor discord and quantify labor cost going forward. This keeps the shareholders happy.

You may as well agree to binding arbitration for 2020 now because the company won’t want to negotiate then either. I honestly feel bad for you guys because your MEC members are a bunch of yes man b*%ches. The problem is that the pilot group accepts it.

At Delta we cleaned house after our initial TA failure. We recalled multiple reps and as a result our union leaders actually listened to the pilot group (mostly).

I'm not there anymore, but the company refused binding arbitration. Otherwise... there would have been binding arbitration. The union's official position was that it showed how eager we were to work to get a deal done and how little the company was.

The pilot group was far from a bunch of yes men though. And the second TA was very much better. Of course bankruptcy took care of that.

Regardless, during that period there was no one getting released. It didn't happen until Spirit instituted carry on bag fees and got released as a punishment. When a union is released just to mess with management, I think that should show pretty good proof that the RLA is not beneficial.

You do seem to have very little idea of what is going around in the industry though. Right now most regionals are approaching the unions to give money just to attract pilots. Of course, the 9E management now is all Delta management too. It works a lot better when management is at least trying to keep people somewhat happy.

Amazing how teachers can shut down an entire state but we are held hostage by a law written 100 years ago. I remember a few years ago the subway system in San Francisco went on strike also. Ironic because they actually work on rails. But yea, it's the Union's fault I guess...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/u...rs-strike.html

They didn't refuse binding arbitration. A panel of arbitrators dictated many of the current contract provisions. The three Judges said, this is what you get on October 31st 2017....this is arbitration, which is binding.

The union agreed to this resolution, which I understand to a point. If they didn't agree to binding arbitration, the company could have dragged things out forever, in theory. This is what happened to Republic Airways, which took 9 years to come to an agreement because the company wasn't negotiating. The union also wanted to avoid a US Airways and America West ***tshow.

Three reasons this approach was a fail for Alaska and why an arbitration approach should not have been used (By the unions choice).

1) The Alaska pilot group got burned by arbitration with Kasher. History repeats itself.

2) Both of the examples above and Kasher episode took place when the economy was in the dumps, so the relative compensation bar was low and dropping. This gave companies the incentive to agree to binding arbitration, because it would likely lead to reduced compensation for the workgroup.

3) Alaska is the darling of Seattle and one thing the company hates is bad press. Picketing at the Seattle headquarters and SeaTac would make the shareholders nervous. Do you know why it didn't make a difference for the outcome of the 10/31/17 award? Because a panel of Judges awarded the contract, so it bought you absolutely no leverage. The picketing events and the orange lanyards didn't mean a thing, because once again a group of judges awarded the big provisions of the new contract (binding arbitration).

I really hope things go differently in 2020 because I will support you guys all the way, with picketing or whatever. Just don't agree to eventual binding arbitration again.

Listen to Lewbronski....he has a better idea of what is going on in the industry then you do. Learn from others man.

Why did you guys end up in Arbitration? Because negotiations failed.

Why did negotiations fail? Because Alaska management did not have to negotiate in good faith.

Why didn't management negotiate in good faith? There was no need to.

With operational metrics as high as they were, there was no need for management to do anything.

If during negotiations your pilots are feeding at the trough, building their line to 117 limits, flying time-and-a-half, and selling back vacations, you guys are scr@wed at the negotiating table. Talk about sending a message. Benito the doochebag heard your message loud and clear, all the way to the bank.

Good luck finding the unity and solidarity necessary to make it all the way to self-help.

.

I don't work for Alaska, and I don't work for Endeavor (formerly Pinnacle), but I did previously. I thought you were referencing Endeavor before but it must be Alaska because Endeavor wasn't in Section 6 contract negotiations last year, they did vote in an LOA to their contract at that time, but it was pudding on top of the contract. Additional benefits to attract more pilots and the pilots voted on it. If it had been arbitrated it sure would have been a coup for the pilots to get that in arbitration, but it wasn't.

Can you please clarify? Your dates are right on so it kind of sounds like you just have no idea what actually is happening in these scenarios. The contract that 9E agreed to arbitration for was never arbitrated because the company would not agree to it. It was negotiated in the regular manner (after which time there was a bankruptcy but that is another story). Fortunately the work rules stayed which really saved the day at the time, and now LOAs have increased pay and other items to much benefit to the pilot group... none of it through arbitration and big items were voted on by the pilot group.

Bullseye^^^

I’m talking Alaska.