Latest AA contract proposal
12-24-2014 | 03:31 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,353
Likes: 0
Saabs, Purple, Whisky et al:
I agree we should negotiate as much as we can and that the Jan. 3 deadline is a scare tactic, but isn't there a false sense of gain in the whole 'I'm fine with the greenbook' argument?
I agree that now is not the time for concessions, but we can't act as if arbitration is a victory. It equates to a loss of a good deal of money for every pilot on the list and what the greenbook maintains simply isn't that good. If we had the vaunted 'Delta work rules' in the greenbook that would be one thing, but it seems to me we have a choice here of 'crummy work rules with a small raise' or 'crummy work rules with a bigger raise.' Whether or not this was the company outmaneuvering us in negotiations can be argued, but it is the current reality. The losses from the Company's offer (HBT, combined intl/dom and midnight sims) don't seem to outweigh the financial gain for every pilot.
Merry Christmas everyone!
I agree we should negotiate as much as we can and that the Jan. 3 deadline is a scare tactic, but isn't there a false sense of gain in the whole 'I'm fine with the greenbook' argument?
I agree that now is not the time for concessions, but we can't act as if arbitration is a victory. It equates to a loss of a good deal of money for every pilot on the list and what the greenbook maintains simply isn't that good. If we had the vaunted 'Delta work rules' in the greenbook that would be one thing, but it seems to me we have a choice here of 'crummy work rules with a small raise' or 'crummy work rules with a bigger raise.' Whether or not this was the company outmaneuvering us in negotiations can be argued, but it is the current reality. The losses from the Company's offer (HBT, combined intl/dom and midnight sims) don't seem to outweigh the financial gain for every pilot.
Merry Christmas everyone!
Arbitration is not a victory for the pilots but its certainly not a victory for management either. Look at it this way, all of the items that Doug wants to gut he can not in arbitration so its status quo in that regard.
I will say this, what AWA lacked in hourly rate we made up for with some of the better work rules in the industry. 5:15 min day credit, company paid STD which was 66% of whatever your hr rate was. LTD benefits and a number of others. This is all gone now and while I like the new hourly rates, look at how much we have had to pay for them. I will not dare ask an LAA pilot what they have given up and what the company wants us to give up now.
So while Arbitration is no savior for us its certainly not one for them either.
Merry Christmas
WD at AWA
12-24-2014 | 06:55 PM
#42
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,208
Likes: 2
From: B737
To answer your question, no, we don't lose our trip rigs. If anything we get a very small bump, but probably nothing you'd really notice.
It's interesting that everyone is saying "save the work rules". We don't really have any work rules to "save", and AAG isn't suggesting changing any of the existing work rules for the most part.
The vast majority of their asks are organizational, not really "work rules" related. It's already been dissected in other forums, but both the I/D combination and the HBT changes would result in about 100-300 positions lost out of 14,000+, but it could also have a net benefit too in terms of possible expansion of WB flying.
You need to understand how the whole MTA/JCBA thing works. There are some, from reading their posts, that seem to think the company's couple-page offer is their entire "contract", but that's not the case.
The current Green Book IS the contract, and their asks are simply amendments to that Green Book. If we accept this deal, we get the pay raise, and they get the modifications to the Green Book that they are seeking. Everything else already in the Green Book stays AS IS.
Essentially, this is the contract we are looking at right now:
Current MTA Green Book, except changes as follows:
- Replace current MTA pay language with Delta +7% begining 2 December 2014, with pay raises as listed by the company (i.e., 3% per year throughout the contract).
- International flying using FAR 117 HBT language
- International/Domestic divisions at LAA combined to be in line with LUS-E and LUS-W single-division structure
- Midnight sims for landing currency IF no other sim periods are available
- Replace "Reasonably available" with "promptly" for short-call
- Quarterly system bids instead of monthly (LAA...LUS is as-needed)
- Discussion of Cadillac healthcare tax and how to compensate pilots while keeping the plan value below the threshold (cost-neutral)
- One year contract extension (includes another 3% pay raise, however)
Additions to the Green Book:
- 2 years of LOS for furloughs
- Change of min duty period from 5:00 to 5:10 (minimal)
- Dropped mention of the 2 hour hard call out language
- Several other minor TAs such as passport fees paid, moving expenses, uniform expenses, etc.
All the other sections of the Green Book (and thus the current MTA) remain unmodified. So all this talk about "don't vote for it, you don't know what's in it" is not really true. Granted, we'll still need to see the final language to ensure nothing was snuck in (or out), but per the current proposal, no one is talking about eliminating trip rigs or any other current work rules other than the proposals listed above.
It's interesting that everyone is saying "save the work rules". We don't really have any work rules to "save", and AAG isn't suggesting changing any of the existing work rules for the most part.
The vast majority of their asks are organizational, not really "work rules" related. It's already been dissected in other forums, but both the I/D combination and the HBT changes would result in about 100-300 positions lost out of 14,000+, but it could also have a net benefit too in terms of possible expansion of WB flying.
You need to understand how the whole MTA/JCBA thing works. There are some, from reading their posts, that seem to think the company's couple-page offer is their entire "contract", but that's not the case.
The current Green Book IS the contract, and their asks are simply amendments to that Green Book. If we accept this deal, we get the pay raise, and they get the modifications to the Green Book that they are seeking. Everything else already in the Green Book stays AS IS.
Essentially, this is the contract we are looking at right now:
Current MTA Green Book, except changes as follows:
- Replace current MTA pay language with Delta +7% begining 2 December 2014, with pay raises as listed by the company (i.e., 3% per year throughout the contract).
- International flying using FAR 117 HBT language
- International/Domestic divisions at LAA combined to be in line with LUS-E and LUS-W single-division structure
- Midnight sims for landing currency IF no other sim periods are available
- Replace "Reasonably available" with "promptly" for short-call
- Quarterly system bids instead of monthly (LAA...LUS is as-needed)
- Discussion of Cadillac healthcare tax and how to compensate pilots while keeping the plan value below the threshold (cost-neutral)
- One year contract extension (includes another 3% pay raise, however)
Additions to the Green Book:
- 2 years of LOS for furloughs
- Change of min duty period from 5:00 to 5:10 (minimal)
- Dropped mention of the 2 hour hard call out language
- Several other minor TAs such as passport fees paid, moving expenses, uniform expenses, etc.
All the other sections of the Green Book (and thus the current MTA) remain unmodified. So all this talk about "don't vote for it, you don't know what's in it" is not really true. Granted, we'll still need to see the final language to ensure nothing was snuck in (or out), but per the current proposal, no one is talking about eliminating trip rigs or any other current work rules other than the proposals listed above.
12-24-2014 | 06:59 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
From: 320 FO
no what i believe he is saying is that he is just fine with staying on current greenbook with all its current work rule. I think he is also saying the he is just fine with the 3% raise in jan because he still has the better work rules in tact. He is also saying that he is fine with the 16% raise that will come in 16 and still have his current work rules in tact. Then i believe finally that he is saying that he will ride it out until the opening of section 6 then back management into a corner or watch this place burn down.
Its one thing for a company to come to you in lean times and ask for some employee help in the way of concessions. I think that when a company is making billions in profits then turn around and want to gut your contract in terms of work rules for a couple of bucks is just flat out rude and disrespectful.
I may or may not have this right saabs you tell us please.
Wd at awa
Its one thing for a company to come to you in lean times and ask for some employee help in the way of concessions. I think that when a company is making billions in profits then turn around and want to gut your contract in terms of work rules for a couple of bucks is just flat out rude and disrespectful.
I may or may not have this right saabs you tell us please.
Wd at awa
spot on!!!!!!!
12-24-2014 | 07:12 PM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
From: 320 FO
To answer your question, no, we don't lose our trip rigs. If anything we get a very small bump, but probably nothing you'd really notice.
It's interesting that everyone is saying "save the work rules". We don't really have any work rules to "save", and AAG isn't suggesting changing any of the existing work rules for the most part.
The vast majority of their asks are organizational, not really "work rules" related. It's already been dissected in other forums, but both the I/D combination and the HBT changes would result in about 100-300 positions lost out of 14,000+, but it could also have a net benefit too in terms of possible expansion of WB flying.
You need to understand how the whole MTA/JCBA thing works. There are some, from reading their posts, that seem to think the company's couple-page offer is their entire "contract", but that's not the case.
The current Green Book IS the contract, and their asks are simply amendments to that Green Book. If we accept this deal, we get the pay raise, and they get the modifications to the Green Book that they are seeking. Everything else already in the Green Book stays AS IS.
Essentially, this is the contract we are looking at right now:
Current MTA Green Book, except changes as follows:
- Replace current MTA pay language with Delta +7% begining 2 December 2014, with pay raises as listed by the company (i.e., 3% per year throughout the contract).
- International flying using FAR 117 HBT language
- International/Domestic divisions at LAA combined to be in line with LUS-E and LUS-W single-division structure
- Midnight sims for landing currency IF no other sim periods are available
- Replace "Reasonably available" with "promptly" for short-call
- Quarterly system bids instead of monthly (LAA...LUS is as-needed)
- Discussion of Cadillac healthcare tax and how to compensate pilots while keeping the plan value below the threshold (cost-neutral)
- One year contract extension (includes another 3% pay raise, however)
Additions to the Green Book:
- 2 years of LOS for furloughs
- Change of min duty period from 5:00 to 5:10 (minimal)
- Dropped mention of the 2 hour hard call out language
- Several other minor TAs such as passport fees paid, moving expenses, uniform expenses, etc.
All the other sections of the Green Book (and thus the current MTA) remain unmodified. So all this talk about "don't vote for it, you don't know what's in it" is not really true. Granted, we'll still need to see the final language to ensure nothing was snuck in (or out), but per the current proposal, no one is talking about eliminating trip rigs or any other current work rules other than the proposals listed above.
It's interesting that everyone is saying "save the work rules". We don't really have any work rules to "save", and AAG isn't suggesting changing any of the existing work rules for the most part.
The vast majority of their asks are organizational, not really "work rules" related. It's already been dissected in other forums, but both the I/D combination and the HBT changes would result in about 100-300 positions lost out of 14,000+, but it could also have a net benefit too in terms of possible expansion of WB flying.
You need to understand how the whole MTA/JCBA thing works. There are some, from reading their posts, that seem to think the company's couple-page offer is their entire "contract", but that's not the case.
The current Green Book IS the contract, and their asks are simply amendments to that Green Book. If we accept this deal, we get the pay raise, and they get the modifications to the Green Book that they are seeking. Everything else already in the Green Book stays AS IS.
Essentially, this is the contract we are looking at right now:
Current MTA Green Book, except changes as follows:
- Replace current MTA pay language with Delta +7% begining 2 December 2014, with pay raises as listed by the company (i.e., 3% per year throughout the contract).
- International flying using FAR 117 HBT language
- International/Domestic divisions at LAA combined to be in line with LUS-E and LUS-W single-division structure
- Midnight sims for landing currency IF no other sim periods are available
- Replace "Reasonably available" with "promptly" for short-call
- Quarterly system bids instead of monthly (LAA...LUS is as-needed)
- Discussion of Cadillac healthcare tax and how to compensate pilots while keeping the plan value below the threshold (cost-neutral)
- One year contract extension (includes another 3% pay raise, however)
Additions to the Green Book:
- 2 years of LOS for furloughs
- Change of min duty period from 5:00 to 5:10 (minimal)
- Dropped mention of the 2 hour hard call out language
- Several other minor TAs such as passport fees paid, moving expenses, uniform expenses, etc.
All the other sections of the Green Book (and thus the current MTA) remain unmodified. So all this talk about "don't vote for it, you don't know what's in it" is not really true. Granted, we'll still need to see the final language to ensure nothing was snuck in (or out), but per the current proposal, no one is talking about eliminating trip rigs or any other current work rules other than the proposals listed above.
There are some very big issues in there that people say isn't that big of a deal. To the company it's a huge savings and going to be a drastic affect on our qol. That's why imo the bod is hung up on certain things. I am not going to give up huge savings to the company for nothing. People also haven't discussed the savings to the company with the plummeting longevity that is going to occur. A few bucks early is not worth that. Look at the actual rates. Most at best are a 10-15 dollar an hr change. Best case you're talking a grand a month gross. That isn't worth it to me to end up being behind the rest of the industry a few months down the road. Think to the future like WD said. My other problem with agreeing is that the term is too long. There will ultimately be some reason to not be financially able to pay us the money and get our rules back. Much better to take parity, keep green book and enter section 6 sooner. Dougy I'm sure will start to catch it from wall street should he have unstable groups.
12-24-2014 | 08:02 PM
#45
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,208
Likes: 2
From: B737
Actually I tallied it up. Between now and through 2016, it'll cost me about $50,000 over two years. That's not a small amount of money.
Huge QOL issues? That's definitely debatable. I've heard all the doom and gloom, but here's the information that's out there:
HBT: Some flights may be flown with two pilots, but like Delta and United, they will likely retain 3 pilot crews for all flights east of Ireland due to flight time and duty time limits. They could possibly get away with some two-pilot crews beyond Ireland, but it would be close and there's no way the company is going to risk canceling flights over that kind of nonsense. They'll likely model Delta and United and keep the FB on most international flights.
There's a good chance that getting rid of the HBT language could allow international flying to grow as it did at Delta and United, meaning jobs could be added, not lost. In any case, the numbers I've seen involve possibly losing about 50 WB jobs (worst case).
International/Domestic fence: Legacy AA is the *only* company that still does this. It stems from a time when having a separate international division made sense based on the speed of the aircraft at the time and the training involved. Nowadays, there's really no need for it and it's become essentially a jobs program at AA. Again, our own union (APA) listed a worst-case outcome of about 100-300 jobs lost (out of 14,000+) due to consolidation. It would likely be less, given how they use reserves versus how a single division uses reserves. In either case, any net loss will be absorbed by the fact we're retiring 400 pilots per year over the next couple years, and that'll start ramping upwards to 900-1000 pilots just after 2020. Rumors that this will result in furloughs and "swinging gear as an E190 FO forever" are just really bad fear-mongering.
Midnight sims: Seriously? At most you'll do this four times a year. And if you're doing it, it's because you haven't really been flying the jet that much. Plus most international flights operate over this time period to begin with, so you should feel right at home. As someone who spent an entire 6 month course going to the sim at midnight and even 2am, this would only seem like a major QOL hit for the most work-averse amongst us.
"Promptly" versus "reasonably available": Delta uses "promptly", and the company dropped the hard 2 hour requirement. Why? Because their own flight operations management team stood up and said they don't want to spend hours and hours of their time having to discipline pilots over minor, arbitrary violations of some mythical hard line in the sand. They'd rather focus on other flight ops issues and deal with the real abusers. So the company dropped the time requirement. Anyone who thinks the company is just chomping at the bit to hammer every reserve pilot every day over this simply doesn't understand how busy Chief Pilots are. They seriously don't have the time to make a big deal over that. Just do what you're supposed to do and get to work as "promptly" as you can and it won't be a problem.
I heard one guy say "what if I'm on the other side of Charlotte and have to drive an hour back to my house to get ready?" Seriously? If you're on short call and you're taking a mini vacation with your family an hour away, you're not playing the game right. Maybe I'm doing it all wrong, but I keep my uniform ironed and ready and my bags packed when short call, and I try to stay within about 15-20 minutes of the crash pad. But I thought that's what I got paid to do...
One year extension: I'd call foul on this if they just wanted to extend it for nothing, but we get another 3% raise out of it. Assuming we didn't have the extension, there's no guarantee we'd get a raise in 2019 because the company doesn't have to give us a new contract in 2019. We could very well be negotiating for some time. At least they are willing to bump the pay up in return for the extra year.
LOS/Min Day/LTD, etc, or lack thereof: Yeah, I get it. We all want those things. Personally, I would like to see some of the LUS reserve system implemented in the Green Book. But the problem is we're not going to see ANY of that in arbitration. Cost-neutral, and all of those things are big-dollar items.
Regardless of what may be said, I'm not convinced that we can walk into arbitration and just slap down the Green Book and keep it that way. The entire purpose of this JCBA/arbitration is to combine the three contracts into one. I believe it's entirely possible the arbitrator could consider the company's requests (as listed above) and award them. The only catch is the arbitrator has to give us the value of those items in return. Sounds fair, right?
Yes, except that our own union has valued HBT and I/D combinations at $50 million per year, and those two things were the "high cost" items. The others are all negligible. So we'd get $50 million per year in realized benefit elsewhere (likely pay)...yet the company is offering us nearly $350 million per year if we work out a deal with them now. There's a real chance we could get screwed and the company gets what they want anyway, and we just get pennies on the dollar for what we could have had them for.
Here we are arguing over whether or not $350 million per year is worth $50 million in structural changes.
Huge QOL issues? That's definitely debatable. I've heard all the doom and gloom, but here's the information that's out there:
HBT: Some flights may be flown with two pilots, but like Delta and United, they will likely retain 3 pilot crews for all flights east of Ireland due to flight time and duty time limits. They could possibly get away with some two-pilot crews beyond Ireland, but it would be close and there's no way the company is going to risk canceling flights over that kind of nonsense. They'll likely model Delta and United and keep the FB on most international flights.
There's a good chance that getting rid of the HBT language could allow international flying to grow as it did at Delta and United, meaning jobs could be added, not lost. In any case, the numbers I've seen involve possibly losing about 50 WB jobs (worst case).
International/Domestic fence: Legacy AA is the *only* company that still does this. It stems from a time when having a separate international division made sense based on the speed of the aircraft at the time and the training involved. Nowadays, there's really no need for it and it's become essentially a jobs program at AA. Again, our own union (APA) listed a worst-case outcome of about 100-300 jobs lost (out of 14,000+) due to consolidation. It would likely be less, given how they use reserves versus how a single division uses reserves. In either case, any net loss will be absorbed by the fact we're retiring 400 pilots per year over the next couple years, and that'll start ramping upwards to 900-1000 pilots just after 2020. Rumors that this will result in furloughs and "swinging gear as an E190 FO forever" are just really bad fear-mongering.
Midnight sims: Seriously? At most you'll do this four times a year. And if you're doing it, it's because you haven't really been flying the jet that much. Plus most international flights operate over this time period to begin with, so you should feel right at home. As someone who spent an entire 6 month course going to the sim at midnight and even 2am, this would only seem like a major QOL hit for the most work-averse amongst us.
"Promptly" versus "reasonably available": Delta uses "promptly", and the company dropped the hard 2 hour requirement. Why? Because their own flight operations management team stood up and said they don't want to spend hours and hours of their time having to discipline pilots over minor, arbitrary violations of some mythical hard line in the sand. They'd rather focus on other flight ops issues and deal with the real abusers. So the company dropped the time requirement. Anyone who thinks the company is just chomping at the bit to hammer every reserve pilot every day over this simply doesn't understand how busy Chief Pilots are. They seriously don't have the time to make a big deal over that. Just do what you're supposed to do and get to work as "promptly" as you can and it won't be a problem.
I heard one guy say "what if I'm on the other side of Charlotte and have to drive an hour back to my house to get ready?" Seriously? If you're on short call and you're taking a mini vacation with your family an hour away, you're not playing the game right. Maybe I'm doing it all wrong, but I keep my uniform ironed and ready and my bags packed when short call, and I try to stay within about 15-20 minutes of the crash pad. But I thought that's what I got paid to do...
One year extension: I'd call foul on this if they just wanted to extend it for nothing, but we get another 3% raise out of it. Assuming we didn't have the extension, there's no guarantee we'd get a raise in 2019 because the company doesn't have to give us a new contract in 2019. We could very well be negotiating for some time. At least they are willing to bump the pay up in return for the extra year.
LOS/Min Day/LTD, etc, or lack thereof: Yeah, I get it. We all want those things. Personally, I would like to see some of the LUS reserve system implemented in the Green Book. But the problem is we're not going to see ANY of that in arbitration. Cost-neutral, and all of those things are big-dollar items.
Regardless of what may be said, I'm not convinced that we can walk into arbitration and just slap down the Green Book and keep it that way. The entire purpose of this JCBA/arbitration is to combine the three contracts into one. I believe it's entirely possible the arbitrator could consider the company's requests (as listed above) and award them. The only catch is the arbitrator has to give us the value of those items in return. Sounds fair, right?
Yes, except that our own union has valued HBT and I/D combinations at $50 million per year, and those two things were the "high cost" items. The others are all negligible. So we'd get $50 million per year in realized benefit elsewhere (likely pay)...yet the company is offering us nearly $350 million per year if we work out a deal with them now. There's a real chance we could get screwed and the company gets what they want anyway, and we just get pennies on the dollar for what we could have had them for.
Here we are arguing over whether or not $350 million per year is worth $50 million in structural changes.
12-24-2014 | 08:20 PM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,166
Likes: 0
Negotiations are over. It's done, there is nothing more the company will offer or needs to offer. We aren't getting a min calender day and we are not getting group 3 for the 321 and with the offered pay rates the 319 at aa pays more than the 757 at delta and united.
Usapa sent out an email this afternoon and its pretty clear that we will get a 27% raise. That is a lot of money and none of these so called concessions are worth the amount of money the company is offering. Most of the things the company wants won't even affect a 1/4 of the airline. I'm not willing to give up all that money because someone can't get to the airport within 2 hours.
lax got it right and once again phl and clt reps are the largest agitators.
Usapa sent out an email this afternoon and its pretty clear that we will get a 27% raise. That is a lot of money and none of these so called concessions are worth the amount of money the company is offering. Most of the things the company wants won't even affect a 1/4 of the airline. I'm not willing to give up all that money because someone can't get to the airport within 2 hours.
lax got it right and once again phl and clt reps are the largest agitators.
12-24-2014 | 09:07 PM
#48
Banned
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
12-25-2014 | 05:28 AM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,450
Likes: 0
From: Airbus button pusher
Negotiations are over. It's done, there is nothing more the company will offer or needs to offer. We aren't getting a min calender day and we are not getting group 3 for the 321 and with the offered pay rates the 319 at aa pays more than the 757 at delta and united.
Usapa sent out an email this afternoon and its pretty clear that we will get a 27% raise. That is a lot of money and none of these so called concessions are worth the amount of money the company is offering. Most of the things the company wants won't even affect a 1/4 of the airline. I'm not willing to give up all that money because someone can't get to the airport within 2 hours.
lax got it right and once again phl and clt reps are the largest agitators.
Usapa sent out an email this afternoon and its pretty clear that we will get a 27% raise. That is a lot of money and none of these so called concessions are worth the amount of money the company is offering. Most of the things the company wants won't even affect a 1/4 of the airline. I'm not willing to give up all that money because someone can't get to the airport within 2 hours.
lax got it right and once again phl and clt reps are the largest agitators.
There is a lot of uncertainty on the proposed rule changes, so I think apa needs to do a better job on informing us the best and worst case scenarios for each one. If there is a grey area, I'll be conservative and would rather keep status quo.
Even of delta or united have something , it doesn't mean AA will treat us with the same respect/interpretations as them. How many times has a rule been proposed to change that we are unsure about and it helps the pilot group? Rarely.
I came from colgan where we had no work rules before we got a contract (that lasted a year I think) so I think the order of most important aspects goes scope, work rules, then pay.
On C and R someone was saying how the midnight sim would be horrible for the 787. It's stuff like this I don't know and need to be educated on by apa.
Right now I'd vote no in a heartbeat. If they educate me and sell it properly of course I can be swayed to the other side. Only time will tell.
It's just irritating to see people come on here and just quote the pay difference. No voters aren't stupid, we know it's a difference.
I don't trust mamagement. I'm happy that texaspilot thinks they are really trying to do the right thing and just give him extra money. The rest of us live in the real world.....
That being said merry xmas from the great CLT airport! Can we get holiday pay??
12-25-2014 | 08:56 AM
#50
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,208
Likes: 2
From: B737
I keep hearing people say that..."the real negotiations begin once we start arbitration". And I ask why, and I'm told that we have something they want, namely HBT and I/D fences coming down.
Here's my take on that posture. First off, both of those things are probably on the company's "nice to have" list, not a "must have". They can run the company without those gives. So it comes down to "just how bad do they want it." I think that answer is about $350 million per year bad. They want it, but they aren't going to pay any price to get it.
It's just like anything else you or I would try to bargain for. Even if we really, really want something, we're not going to plunk down just any sum of money to get it. The truth is, in real dollar amounts, those two items combined are worth about $50 million per year. To the company, it's worth a little more because it means getting a solution earlier and being able to use that solution to make the airline more efficient. But even then, I just don't see them willing to give us full LOS, 5+ hour min calendar day and all the other expensive goodies that we want.
We have some leverage, sure. And that leverage is enough to get us Delta +7% with a couple years of LOS thrown in there for good measure. Those things alone are worth many times more than what the company is asking in return. That whole line about how the raise was a reward for being awesome pilots and employees? That's simply PR. You need to just forget that stuff and realize this whole thing is basically just a purchase deal, just like you'd buy a new car at a dealer. At some point all the flowery language goes out the window and you haggle over price point. Same thing here.
Here's my take on that posture. First off, both of those things are probably on the company's "nice to have" list, not a "must have". They can run the company without those gives. So it comes down to "just how bad do they want it." I think that answer is about $350 million per year bad. They want it, but they aren't going to pay any price to get it.
It's just like anything else you or I would try to bargain for. Even if we really, really want something, we're not going to plunk down just any sum of money to get it. The truth is, in real dollar amounts, those two items combined are worth about $50 million per year. To the company, it's worth a little more because it means getting a solution earlier and being able to use that solution to make the airline more efficient. But even then, I just don't see them willing to give us full LOS, 5+ hour min calendar day and all the other expensive goodies that we want.
We have some leverage, sure. And that leverage is enough to get us Delta +7% with a couple years of LOS thrown in there for good measure. Those things alone are worth many times more than what the company is asking in return. That whole line about how the raise was a reward for being awesome pilots and employees? That's simply PR. You need to just forget that stuff and realize this whole thing is basically just a purchase deal, just like you'd buy a new car at a dealer. At some point all the flowery language goes out the window and you haggle over price point. Same thing here.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
