It's my understanding that the offer is a modification of the MTA. Any language would necessarily need to be hammered out before amending the current agreement. The rest of the MTA will continue to be enforced.

 

Yes, it important to know the differences between taking managements present offer vs. arbitration. Personally, I keep seeing people posting that many think they'll get Delta rates either with the MOU defined arbitration or within X years prior to section 6 bargaining. I don't know why they keep saying this (well, actually I do), but I hear VERY few pilots confused about this, a few, but not many. The decision is (at least presently) :

Capitulate to Parker's ultimatum and agree to the terms presented subject to further refinement, if any. That is an unknown wildcard at present.

-or-

Accept Parker's proffer of arbitration (which is required if proffered) and understand that pay will NOT match Delta, but will be "industry comparable", which essentially means somewhere between Delta and United. Parker tossed out a 13% 2016 bump (on top of 3% Jan 1.) statement yesterday. No profit sharing addition. In exchange for that, Parker essentially loses all HIS work rule concessionary demands (many of which offset a certain percentage of his pay offer) and all previous tentative agreements get tossed.

Arbitration occurs where should Parker want to negotiate some work rule changes, I suppose he could, but APA would have to accept them and agree to the valuation as well as what is offered in compensation and so would the arbitrator. It very well may come down to just adjusting the pay, accepting the current contractual status quo in work rules and moving on. I think this is what Parker meant when he said that if APA didn't agree to his ultimatum, then any agreement prior to the completion of the arbitration process would be based on his present ultimatum.

By January 2016, if we just go with the straight MOU provisions, we'll then have a 16% bump for all pilots (according to Parker) which puts us between United and Delta, keep our present contractual work rules and begin section 6 in 2019, just 3 years from our significant pay bump.

I agree with Parker - that's not such a bad deal. It still will claim as victims trust and cooperation and the airline still will IMO wallow into inferior mediocrity, but our proper section 6 battle won't be that far off.

 

I say get to section 6 quicker. By the end of 2018 united and delta should have a contract. If they gave us their proposal that ended at the same time the mou does then I would be more willing to consider it....

 

A lot of virtual ink spilled in this discussion, tempers flared, and true colors manifested.
I would only add that when Glass walked in to the picture, APA should have realized there was no deal to be had and just as calmly as Glass' demeanor - should have walked across the room, deposited the offer in the trash bin, and walked out for early lunch or watering hole of choice.

 

I don't get where people are saying that the company proposal is a "shadowy deal" or a "bar napkin deal". Their requests (and the pay) are modifications to the current language of the MTA. Outside of those things, the rest of the MTA continues to be in effect and those eight items (the seven requests plus the pay changes) go into effect December 1.

It's up to APA to negotiate language for those seven items that are not sloppy, or just negotiate them away. Beyond that, I don't see how the company offer is some kind of "unknown wildcard". I think if we can reach an agreement and alter the language of the company requests, remove them or somehow reduce their impacts, taking the deal is the better of the two.

Parker is in no position to negotiate much during arbitration. To do so would mean he'd need to do the same with the APFA, and when it comes time for the other labor groups, he'll have reduced leverage because they'll know he'll keep playing ball.

If he sticks straight to arbitration with no additional negotiating, he may have lost trust with us, but I think was never really worried about that. Look at the past, and that'll tell you a lot about the future. Maybe this experience will change his behavior down the line, but AT THIS POINT, he's still running off his experiences with AWA and US Airways.

 

I can't believe this. All this chest thumping will do nothing.

It's obvious we won't get more by going to arbitration. The company proposal is not the end of the world, especially since scope is off the table. Lets examine:

1. 2 hour call out. No big deal. It's been that way for years at US Airways.

2. Combining domestic/ international. Again, no big deal. It's been that way for years at US. Why this is an issue I cant comprehend. If anything, it would give more bidding options.

3. Landing currency at night. Ok, for a very small portion of pilots, go to the Sim for 30 minutes at night once every 3 months. Big deal. You fly at night all the time doing international.

All of these things can be tweaked if we agree to the framework. Maybe we can negotiate a 3 hour call out, one year shorter duration, etc. Lets get this done and get it to a vote.

 

it has been explained ad nauseam imo - this is not a negotiation - the the BOD's words it was a cram down.
For fear of apoplexy of the whole group they withdrew scope but that is the only semblance of negotiation in the last week

 

That is not correct.
You have to live within 90 mins of driving time. No HARD report time is included in the current method of reserve.
And yes, it is a huge difference.

It might start out as only doing three bounces in the middle of the night but in short time it WILL creep over to more than just that.
Been there, done that.

 

....Exactly!

 

Whoa, there partner. I don't know where you are interpreting or hearing Parker's ultimatum concessions (the work rule changes he's asking to pay for some of the raises) "go into effect Dec.1". If you believe that, no wonder your position is what it is.

That is NOT true. Those "asks" vaporize once we go to arbitration. He may want to bargain for them again, but again, they'd have to be correctly valued, compensated for and agreed to. Does it make you wonder why Parker REFUSES to place a valuation on them NOW at APA's request ?

It's up to BOTH parties to negotiate something and so far Parker refuses to negotiate, only dictate ultimatums.

Parker certainly could negotiate with us during arbitration, but yes, it will be harder to use that as a facade considering to capitulate to one group strengthens the resolve of the other. I like the duration that arbitration provides much better unless Parker is willing to talk turkey.