Your numbers are high. 2013 profit sharing paid in FEB of 14 was just over 8%. 2014 profit sharing is projected at 15 to 16%. 5% was paid as a bonus in NOV and the balance will be paid in FEB. 2015 profit sharing payable in 2016 is projected at 18 to 20%.

 

So if AAL was only projected to make a billion dollars next year, would that make Parker's offer a great deal? What if the company said "We're making boat loads of cash! We'll give you everything you want, with the understanding that will go to arbitration to reduce it if we make less that X% profit margin." Would you take it?

I get your real point. There has never been a better time to stand our ground for what we deserve. I agree, and I will support the BOD. My concern is that we, the line pilots, don't have all the information about valuations, and this little MTA value arbitration thing. I cannot remember a single good arbitration for labor. I'm sure there are some, but I remember a lot of losses for us.

My big questions:

1-Does the company have to operate intl/Dom bases everywhere, or could they do the flying from other bases? ie fly the CLT international from the MIA base and not open a CLT Intl base.
2-Are we SURE that the company wants won't be opened in arbitration, and the arbitrator give them to the company for some small change for us?

 

Good points R57. I think it's important that we keep our greed in check. I don't care how much the company makes. The more the better, I just want to be paid industry standard (W2) including work rules. Unfortunately that's where the company's offer is lacking. The debate lies in where the company really draws the line and what we're willing to accept. I believe negotiations should be a win win for both sides. This proposal may or may not be a win win depending on your opinion but it's important that we check our egos at the cockpit door and keep each other safe.

 

Yes. It is not an opportunity for the Company to start a mediated negotiation.

The arbitrator’s jurisdiction and award will be limited to fashioning provisions which are consistent with the terms of the MTA, including provisions which implement the terms of the MTA or facilitate the integration of pilots under the terms of the MTA. The arbitrator’s award specifically shall adhere to the economic terms of the MTA and shall not change the MTA’s Scope terms (Paragraph 25 of this Memorandum)or the modifications generated through the process set forth in Paragraph 24 of this Memorandum.

 

I've read that over and over again, and it looks like a ton of language that the company has driven right around before.

What about the intl/dom question I asked? Ever consider that?

Anyway, I hope you are right. It's up to the board anyway.

 

Econ only. This is not section 6 negotiation which would be required to open up sections of the current contract. This is why it is so damned important to NOT give up items in work rules. Now make no mistake, the dollar amount that the company is offering is pretty good but when weighed against the work rule changes the company wants its awful.

The arbitration route is not a win for pilots but its also not a win for management by any means and in fact its worse for management in the long run. The reason I say that is this, section 6 negotiations open in 18 and the memory of the company trying to really stick it up the rear of the pilots will play long and hard against them during that time. It is sure to be an interesting first couple of weeks of 2015 that much is a given.

WD at AWA

 

First time ever...I hope you're right!

 

Based on Supplement I, it would appear they could do the CLT Intl. without a CLT Intl. base. Whether that's operationally wise is another matter.

It is indeed up to the BOD. These are complex matters. Once it gets beyond them, I doubt these complex matters will get equally complex consideration. The hourly pay rate is all many will give consideration to.

 

Yep, unfortunately this turd will pass by a wide margin if it goes to a vote. "Want some candy kid??"

 

There are several other implications to the international flying if these concessions are handed over on a silver platter to management, as every other one has been throughout the years.

Relief on FAR 117 will result in not only more two-pilot trans-Atlantic trips, but possibly more two-pilot trans-Atlantic legs.

I understand that some carriers use "floating" IRO's; that is, an IRO is only assigned to legs that are actually scheduled for over eight hours. (For example, an eastbound leg from the US to the EU might only be scheduled for 7:40, while the westbound is scheduled for 8:20. Only that westbound leg would have an IRO assigned to it.)

Furthermore, I have also heard that some carriers actually DH IRO's on legs that don't require one as an active crewmember. How would you like to sit in the middle coach seat of a 757 for seven hours -- at half pay?

With regard to bases losing flying, although Parker has mentioned that he wouldn't put one airline's crewmembers in the other airline's hubs/bases (as CO did in ORD and SFO, before their SLI was completed), nothing would prevent trips from being operated, say, MIA-LHR-CLT-CDG-MIA; or PHL-FCO-JFK-MAD-PHL.

And for those who are thinking "It doesn't affect me" because you don't fly international, well how many times has that attitude come back to bite pilots who voted "Yes" on contracts with crappy reserve systems or below-regional-standard pay for smaller mainline aircraft, only to find out later that it did affect them?

Fewer international pilots, as a result of diminished staffing requirements and/or a less desirable QOL on international service, means more domestic pilots getting bumped from left seat to right seat, from blockholder to reserve, from Group II to Group I, and from Group I to you-know-where.

Alas, I realize that these points have been offered in vain. I agree with the above posters in that we all know that in the end, the "Let My Daddy Vote" pants-wetters will prevail.

'Always have. 'Always will.