I do too, but with all due respect to my AA brothers, that was stupid. Parker tells us over and over again who he is. The fact that he excluded his own employees during the MOU told everyone what he really thought about labor.

They fell for it and now have buyers remorse.

 

You are absolutely correct and that statement of mine was wrong. We do not have the "tightest" scope in the industry. I suppose I should have just stated "present scope". Clearly, that's more restrictive then Parker wants though.

 

Haven't heard this either (and still don't believe it). Source ?

 

No emails and nothing on apa website.

 

Watch the DFW crew news. It may not be official, but Parker said that we are so far apart that he thinks we're headed to arbitration.

He also said that we could have the current company offer, minus the scope ask, if we want it. I think that was the reason for bringing it up to start with. Beautiful distraction.

I really don't think he cares. He wins either way and I don't think any pilot dissatisfaction worries him one bit.

 

Yup. In the "negotiations update" segment, Parker is more revealing then he wants to be (at least to me). First of all, he appears very nervous about the subject as opposed to his demeanor in other videos on other subjects. I notice he attempted to steer the entire issue toward pay rates and didn't even bring up the elephant in the room (scope) to say any of the other issues. He stated that presently he believes we are headed toward arbitration and says "they" think that's not a "bad" thing. He states they are very far apart, but still talking. Does that mean their position is unwavering and he's simply posturing here or there IS some wiggle room ?

I like the "managing expectations" perspective as that's what I see too. As I stated before (and I certainly could be wrong), I think a one time counter will be passed giving some minor leeway on some items (see my prior post) to allow SOMETHING to "get past the board" as Parker says they're having a difficult time doing (why even be concerned with doing that if he REALLY wants arbitration ?). I think a failed vote is what's needed for Parker to argue more effectively in arbitration (or negotiate or mediate outside of it), then going to an arbitration to resolve issues that the pilots never even had a chance to vote on.

Parker needs something to at least make it to the pilots (even if rejected there) and APA needs an out as well. Thus, I still stand behind my belief that SOMETHING will be offered as a counter although still disappointing to many. The APA will then have to "let the pilots decide" on whether they collectively want arbitration and thus will have gotten themselves off the hook. Both sides need a pilot vote whether its a pass or fail. In fact, after that little speech, any further sweetening would make Parker really look like a saint trying to bend over backward to engender good will (while still getting virtually all of what he wants), eh ?

Slamming the door on APA or forcing them to look like knock-kneed idiots to their own pilots by crumbling and punting the "initial" proposal to them just makes him look like the same bully Horton was (but with an 'aw shucks, good old boy delivery).

 

Yup. I think that statement is premature. Again, I ask all to review the negotiations section and REALLY listen (and watch Parker). He indeed states they are "far apart" in negotiations, but listen......really listen to the remainder (before and after). His other statements are more revealing then what he wants you to focus on (the "far apart" claim), JUST as he wants you to focus on ONLY pay RATES as the primary carrot.

Let me ask those who've watched it this;

Was he STILL attempting to SELL something or was he simply dryly reviewing the situation ?

I saw a sales pitch.

If the pilots cannot expect SOMETHING to vote on, why try to still sell something ?

I agree that expectations are being managed and Parker not only wants to get something past the BOD, he wants the majority of pilots to accept it, thus a sales pitch 1 day prior to an offer to APA. I think he'd also like a little pressure from them to the BOD to get something to vote on once their final counter with a dab of extra sugar is in the hands of the BOD.

 

What is the issue with the current offer minus the scope increase? That sounds decent for me. It's either that or the MOU/arb route. Like he said it's either we come to an agreement now or we get what we already have. The scope issue was the biggest issue for us, they know that, they know we know they know that, etc, so outside of that wasn't the rest of it better than we could ever hope to get until 2019?

 

He is always selling, that's what crew news session are about. He probably had an ear piece with a Glass on the other end. But, as you said, he has tells and he lets things out. On purpose or not?

I think he would rather have and agreement than arbitration. That's why the offer was sweetened at all. But, I think he's okay with arbitration. They wouldn't have entered an agreement they wouldn't be happy with, unlike us. The million dollar questions are- how much give is left and how much pressure can the pilots exert?

 

As I was reminded of by another, Parker ALREADY has MORE then competitive scope. It's common to insert items in initial contract offers that can be withdrawn thus "sweetening" an offer by not ADDING more sugar, but instead by removing something sour. Personally, I think if the scope request is eliminated, a few minor additional sweeteners will probably be thrown in to ensure ratification. Removing scope might be enough to give APA an out and get it to the pilots, but other issues might need a dab or two of sugar here and there to ensure ratification. Probably cheap insurance to get what BOTH sides want anyway...........a ratified deal.