Death by a thousand cuts ?

I'd rather have ONE stab in arbitration, thank you. I think I'll survive that and the agony won't be as prolonged.

 

The question is will the ACA survive past the spring now that SCOTUS has agreed to hear King v. Burwell? That's going to be such a mess.

 

No significant news likely from APA on the JCBA situation until probably the end of the week. BOD is meeting all week and are determining their next move regarding this situation.

 

As would I- and at least their best guess of the worst case arbitrated outcome. People need to know exactly what the MOU spells out.

 

BINGO!! For once I agree with Eaglefly. Im having a hard time understanding why others are failing to see this

 

I agree with Huey Pilot and Inline. With scope off the table, I think this is our best bet. As a new hire closing in on year two pay, this deal would likely mean close to $55k more over the next four years (not including time value of money). YMMV based on LOS.

I would like to see the 2016 DAL match clause kept obviously. And get LOS for furloughees.

2 hour short call...I don't really see the problem (I'm a commuter with a crash pad though, and a line)


As for health care taxes, that's not even on the table. If you voted for Obama, go ahead and choke yourself for me (seriously). That lies squarely with the (U)AHCA. And no (Eaglefly) I absolutely do not want a pay rate reduction to get better health care rates. I get my health care elsewhere.

 

Not mine. Picked this off another board. Worth reading I think. Arbitration will not be our friend on a lot of these items.

" 'I'm guessing that we won't get a very good counter from AA. So, what can we expect in arbitration? Being "cost nuetral", here is what I expect:

* AA asks for 2 hour hard reserve report. Cost nuetral? YES. Industry standard? YES. Arbitrator? YES.

* AA asks for 20 minute hard call back. Cost nuetral? YES. Industry standard? YES. Arbitrator? YES.

* AA asks for overnight sims. Cost nuetral? YES. Industry standard? YES. Arbitrator? YES.

* APA asks for LOS. Cost nuetral? NO. next...

* APA asks for money/hotel improvements/5:20 day/etc. Cost nuetral? NO. Arbitrator? "How are you going to pay for it?"

We may lose all of these things and more, but at least in 2016 we'll get a raise to make less than Delta."

 

Good analysis from both sides of the argument. It would be so nice if management dealt with us in the same civilized manner we generally do them.
That will never happen. Instead we are continually making assumptions on what might or might not happen grasping for straws. My experience tells me Parker won't move from his proposal, our BOD won't move from their counter, and we the line pilots begrudgingly live with the results, the MOU with a Few small inconsequential modifications. IMO, the company wins and pats us on the back for our efforts. Been there, done that. It's definitely not fair but who cares? Profits should keep tumbling in, share prices go up, and the paying passenger comes to accept lack luster service from employees of the airline.
Do not be surprised that very little will change from today. Take care of yourself, your crew, and go home trying not to dwell on the bad parts of the job and industry. That's all...

 

I don't understand these claims. First if all, "industry standard" has nothing to do with anything. Parker doesn't get something in THIS arbitration just because others MAY have it. This is just furniture rearrangement. The MOU provisions were agreed upon with certain valuations. For instance APA traded profit-sharing away for X amount of dollars. If Parker wants to alter our present work rules to obtain a change, it must have a corresponding value. That value must then be applied to APA in another area to compensate for that and that's IF the arbitrator agrees with the change request. The situation is equally reversed for any changes APA proposes.

This isn't an open ended cherry pick for Parker and nothing he asks to change is free. Every change to present work rules must be balanced out by an equally valued change elsewhere.

 

I did vote for Obama and not choking myself- Two of my four kids were allowed back on my insurance and one of the four got better coverage for substantially less money. And BTW there were lots of pilots who would have left USAirways when things got bad, if the ACA had been in place- small children and or family members with preexisting...... but I apologize, I do digress. I can see why people think it stinks if you are young, childless and have a nice job.I don't see how the ACA is going to live through King v. Burwell. I hope it does but it is really hanging by a thread.