No kidding. All you hardcore unionists keep projecting this doom and gloom. I think there's a more political union agenda behind all that rhetoric. "Oh no! The sky is falling!"

I agree with the post above that when regular section 6 comes up, if the company is still profitable, we will have the leverage to secure a Delta or better contract. We do not have that ability right now.

The value plan is at company discretion. Cadillac affects the other two and this could be arbitrated. From my understanding though, we have a reverse "me too" scenario that puts us in the same boat as other employee groups and thus our premiums could end up in the Obama Care range. They could get all that money back and then some.

But don't look at the man behind the curtain.......look over here......here.....I have some shiny candy for you ! :rolleyes:

If I'm not mistaken, under the law, the company is required to pay the tax.

The best way to insure that our healthcare won't erode further, short of a supreme court victory, is for everyone to vote in a Republican president in 2016.

It doesn't ?

Could you tell me what your strategy is in 2020 when we once again drop to our knees and pray Parker doesn't say "no" ?



Specifically,

A. Tell me what leverage we will have with our broken group still blaming each other for this disaster who will all be older with many who haven't already retired, are very close to it ?

B. Tell me what leverage we will have with the worst (most competitively advantageous to management) work rules and benefits of all the competitive legacy carriers ?

C. Tell me what leverage we will have with the lowest pay scales of the big three ?

D. Explain why Parker won't kick the can for another 5 years after that considering the above future FACTS ?

E. Convince me as an older, more senior pilot much CLOSER to retirement why I shouldn't act in self-interest as many advocate now (rationalized or not) for a few extra bucks and a little sooner as opposed to the more favorable long-term interests of the group, especially when I'll be gone before any succeeding agreement ?

Make it good, because next time around without a believable plan nor a GROUP to stand with, I'll have flipped big time and trust me.......I'll have plenty of company.

Your move.

The R's will never get rid of Obamacare even if they had the perfect opportunity. Just like the Dems will never sign on to immigration reform (could have had 100% their way in 08-10). They all need their bogeyman to fight against.... but thats another topic entirely....

Not likely on the P vote...and again, with reverse "me too", we'd be tethered to others and in 5 years, what's that going to cost in premiums ?

$15-17,000 annual with perhaps a $5000 deductible ?

I hope you save a lot of that money from here on out, pal.

You're going to need it.

AAG's biggest labor albatross is health care now that pensions have been gutted. Trust me, in that respect, he'll dump us out like soiled laundry and why shouldn't he ?

It's not like we're going to do anything about it, eh ?

Saw a thing on TV news evaluating the next P bid. Basically came to the conclusion that Hillary will need only something like 1/4 of the electoral votes that will be in play. In other words, our next President will wear skirts, regardless of who the R's field unless she flops over before then.

A-E) Destroying one's credibility/standing for future negotiations is a far cry from "destroying one's future." Even that is debatable. But I'll let you guys that live your lives on this forum to hash that one out....

That's what I thought.

No plan whatsoever. :cool:

See you in 2020 my friend when I'll advocate giving Doug a blank piece of paper to fill in the blanks if it gets me a little more $$$ in 2020 vs. him stalling for 5 years.

The only variable is what he fills in the blanks to pay for it. :eek:

That will be the majority philosophy from all the old geezers in their late 50's and 60's who will be the majority (heck....that's a significant percentage of the yes crowd NOW !). Everyone needs to plan their foxhole position now and to all those who think anything will be different in 2020, well,....................pucker up, Buttercup.

W-T-F are you talking about??? I was pointing out the absurdity of you saying that some are in the process of destroying our future and you somehow want my point-by-point plan for 2020 as a retort???

By the way.... my "plan" is to vote NO on this proposal in case you didn't catch it already.

And that, my friend, is what the company set out to do by negotiating directly with the pilot group. They knew you'd get on your knees because you bought in to the threat of arbitration. Have the courage to vote no. You will be offered another deal prior to arbitration. They're making you think this is an 11th hour deal when in fact it's still more like 7pm.

My point is, if one plans to vote yes now, they better have a plan for 2020. No one does because we have no weapons of leverage and twice the vulnerability. Many yes voters don't care about that, only quick $$$.

As stated, the two plans other than the value plan would have to be arbitrated. And according to the company proposal, any outcome would have to be cost-neutral to us (in other words, if we have to pay higher premiums, we would have to be compensated for that somehow).

It's a big IF because the GOP doesn't need to repeal Obamacare to get rid of the tax. They can just amend the law or strip it of funding. And whoever gets into office in 2016 will still have to face Congress, which will likely remain in GOP control until they anger enough voters. Experience shows this flip-flop happens every 6-8 years. So right around 2020 we'll probably see the Congress go back to the Dems.

There's already a legitimate challenge to the law in the form of the Supreme Court case that's hearing the issue regarding how the law was written. From what I've gathered and read, they did a really poor job writing the law and stipulated specifically that state exchanges can receive federal subsidies, but there's no specific spending authorization for subsidies for the federal exchange.

If you go strictly by the law (and precedent), then that means most Americans will lose their subsidies because the law does not specifically authorize that funding. The administration (and the Dems) contend that "the law implies it", but having been a budget authority in the military, if the law doesn't specifically authorize funds, it cannot be funded just because "we meant it but didn't write it in there". The legally correct way is to amend the law to authorize the appropriation of funds for federal subsidies...but do you really think the GOP will pass such legislation? I think not.

Hence why a lot of people feel Obamacare is in trouble regardless of whether Clinton takes office or not.

My prediction, for what it's worth (but I think I'm right):

Pilots vote no, probably by a slim margin.
Company and union go to arbitration.
Award is handed out.
Company says they'll live with it, and we'll see ya in 2019.
Then the company will stonewall us for many years.

I can live with that and I hope you are right... ( I think there is a chance the company comes back to negotiate for more if there is a no vote, but if not I don't care! )

that would be a HUGE win for the pilots. Realistically, you vote no, they'll come back and accept the APA offer with min calendar day for the instant ratification that's been promised if the company accepts. and your 23 percent pay raise just turned into more like a 30-40 percent pay raise depending on how PBS is implemented

I do not see them coming back and offering min day. They haven't yet come back with that huge of a sweetener, and I doubt they will anytime soon. It's not a huge win for the pilots.

Everyone loses about $100k in economic terms. Parker will only play this same game in 2019 and it'll be early 2020s before we see any kind of contract...and we'll not only have to make up the QOL ground, we'll have to make up the pay ground as well...since the MTA will have us a very very solid third place by then.

you are wrong in that the MTA gives up quality of life, those things are not open to the arbitrator.... I can live with the MTA

You misunderstood what I wrote. I didn't say the MTA gives up quality of life (actually, it did...but that's already said and done). I said that if we go with just the MTA, we will not only have to claw back the QOL items that are noticeably missing from the MTA, we'll have to claw back the pay as well. Two big hurdles to jump, instead of one.

They will come back. You think Parker can stand in front of the his board on January 20th and say, I still haven't solved our labor issue, and not catch massive flak for it? You think hes gonna say, "don't worry I got this, In the next 3 to 6 months we'll maybe get this handled in arbitration, but I don't know what the end result will be" ?? Its not going to go well for him to not have clear answers. You will get a new offer before arbitration. They don't want unknowns. They want something definitive. They want it now, not 6 months from now.

They won't have to wait 3 to 6 months to get it taken care of in arbitration. I'm telling you arbitration will be over in a few weeks, not months. And arbitration is already costed out. The arbitration you're talking about (unknowns, etc) does not exist in the MTA language. The board mostly cares about economics, and the cost-neutral language preserves the economics of the deal. The HBT carve out and combined division stuff will not have a major effect on their bottom line. They ran US Airways as a floating leper colony and somehow made that work. HBT etc is minor compared to that.

The more I think about the more ****ed I'm getting about the offer. I'm on the fence about it, but on the one hand I want the money and on the other I want to tell Parker to tuck off.

No one said you had to be happy about getting the pay raise. Although it's economically in our favor, it's still a sh!tty deal. It's just less sh!tty than what we'd get going through the other door.

This is why the company prefers to negotiate with the membership.

A year ago all here were just fine with the MOU.. Now look at folks readily willing to trade concessions to get the money early.

Look hard at these concessions and ask yourself.. If they are so minor why is mngt wanting it? All of these wants have a price tag and they want to get it the cheapest. We are nearing the end.. Let's let our reps do their jobs.

In a few weeks the company will post even more record profits as well as the compensation details of our execs for the year (Will be fun to see their profit sharing ).They can and should be compensating us better.

You just described the mentality of the flight attendants.

Are you a flight attendent? Or a pilot?

People are assuming profits will go ape next year. I'm not so sure. Yes oil prices are down but so is the overall market for oil, demand has dropped tremendously. Europe and Asia are weakening as is our Mecca, Texas. Latin America traffic has dropped off the cliff.

Domestically the U.S. is OK overall for now helped by the extra oomph of cheap gas but that could go either way. SWA increased traffic in DAL 13% alone in one month while ours dropped 1% in the same month. Our domestic strength is non-existent in the face of LCCs and ULCCs. We need a strong world economy to be profitable unlike SWA.

No. AA will make the most it's ever made in 2015. No paranoia or fear factor, this isn't 2007, and voting out of fear is the worst thing you can do. This the the greatest period of economic prosperity in the history of the airline industry.

Canoe... There's hope for you!! If only Texaspilot would come around!

The difference between Texas and I is that he's popping a boner like this is the best contract ever. I just don't want to turn down the money and go to arbitration and then not get ****. The thinking that we'll bring the company to their knees and come out ahead in pay with arbitration is flawed. Why hasn't APA put out detailed information comparing each proposal (mou or company offer)?
The biggest mistakes in this whole situation can be placed on APA for doing the backroom deal with doug and not even including the US air pilots in anything. In the typical AAroggance they thought parker was some small time ceo who would be desperate. They were so gung-ho about getting rid of Horton at all costs they didn't think ahead. Well now we know the cost.

Not true. I never said this is the best contract. It does lack in several areas. However, I'm a realist and know that this is the best were gonna get at this point and it is a heck of a lot better than the MOU.

But didn't you also say that the previous offer was the best you were gonna get and you wanted to accept that deal as well? The BOD stood their ground and got you some improvements. Do you really think they were being hardliners? The argument I hear from some yes voters was the BOD was too greedy. Do you agree? Because if that really is the prevailing opinion, maybe we need to define what a "hardliner" is these days. Maybe I'm alone here, but you do have to draw a line somewhere. I think When PBS gets implemented and you find yourself working tirelessly to make only slight improvements in pay, you'll maybe rethink your strategy. I hope that's not true. I hope that you can comfortably get 15-16 days off a month and make 80+ hours pay, but in the case that you end up working 19-20 days for pay in the 70-75 hour range (see my previous examples), you may find yourself bidding reserve for some pay and QOL relief, because you'll have no work rules to protect you, and you'll be relying on the good faith of the company to give you days off as a lineholder that they're not obligated to give. It need not be that way.

Full documentation is expected soon to allow everyone to make an informed decision. APA legal counsel EJ has described our expectations of arbitration exactly as I have said for weeks. As per the MOU our pay is set with the most substantial increases in 11.5 months. These will put us above UAL pilots, but still below Delta. ALL Parker's "wants" go sailing right out the window as well as the minor items already tentatively agreed to between the parties. The present Green Book (has that been so bad ?) is the default contract and the arbitration process is STRICTLY to bring the other two contracts in compliance with the Green Book, the only stipulation is that in doing so, the companies costs must not increase.

That can be done without giving Parker any of his wants and as per the MOU, arbitration is NOT an opportunity for Parker to make it something it is not, nor use it to get the "wants" he couldn't achieve through negotiation (which again has been mostly dictation and ultimatum). There is no requirement to "streamline" the Green Book either. APA could simply ask for carve outs for whatever work rules are specific and necessary to the US Airways domiciles to apply to all present and future pilots based there (PHX is likely to lose its present domicile/Hub status within a few years).

The Green Book essentially remains intact, we get slight raises now and the big raise in 2016. We get exposure to additional Delta increases should those occur, we get section 6 a year sooner and most importantly, we remain as a relevant and more cohesive union and negotiating force into the future, instead of a fragmented and broken group of independent contractors all looking out for themselves. There is STRONG likelyhood that such an outcome will at some point compel Parker back to the table and with a bit more respect and propriety.

I've run the financials for myself and I'd have to be crazy just to say no solely for retaliation and/or anger and leave that money. It's TAINTED money though and the price for accepting it is too high. That's the trade in front of us now.

Take a quick buy off and pay the long term price (which is far more devastating) - or- undergo the process we previously agreed to that has a large portion of the pay off already built-in and a contractual description of how the remainder is to be resolved and who and what the boundaries are. The F/A's arbitration followed their guidelines to the letter and so will ours.

Well said EF. So with that being said, will arbitration force USAIR bases to establish separate intl/dom bases or will it be status quo? Is this the thing they might fear in arbitration? They clearly fear something about arbitration. Let's find out what that is.

The Green Book is the baseline contract. The purpose of arbitration is NOT to streamline any provisions simply because it would be "easier" for management, but to bring the other contracts IN COMPlIANCE with the Green Book provisions. Parker doesn't get to "propose" contractual changes he made but couldn't get, including wholesale combination of divisions and then "offer" a corresponding compensator based on valuation X. This arbitration's purpose doesn't allow that. Neither did the F/A's and when THEY asked for things they couldn't get through negotiation, they were rejected for exactly that reason. Goose and Gander realities here.

The present Green Book has domicile specific provisions already such as carve out flying in DFW and MIA for former TWA, so this is something well within the boundaries of this arbitral result. It would not change PRESENT costs one iota which IS the litmus.

I take back what I said earlier, ghilis. We need more guys like you over here. :)

So if one a yes voter is it only about the money at all other costs? I seriously wish PBS had gone into effect this month. I think that this vote would have been a definite no if people realized just how hard they would be worked in terms of days away from home when paper bidding goes away. My main concern is voting yes on this, then seeing the results on QOL when PBS gets implemented will cause major buyers remorse.

If the arbitration panel can create carve outs for HBT and dom/intl in the US Air domiciles there is ZERO reason for the US Air pilots to vote No.

We would get none of the benefits of AA contract with all of the downsides of losing the proposed one (pay).

You are wrong. The play book used at eagle/envoy is exactly the same play book here. Same deal pushed across and everytime saying this is the final offer. I left eagle just after bankruptcy and have watched this mess go down on both sides. It's amazing people do. It educate themselves with this management team when it's done right in front of them. The strategy was completely transparent.

Haha! You'll be happy to know that most of the poolies I'm in contact with are on board with protecting the dignity of our profession and the preservation of our self worth. I commend you and support your group for the amount of pain you suffered over the past 14 years and still did your job like the consummate professionals that you are. You deserve better and I do have high hopes for this group. I'm by no means a hard liner, although from some of the responses I've gotten I'm starting to feel like some think I am. What happened to our profession to make one think that voting no to a contract that lags our peers significantly is a bad thing?

I used to fly for a guy named Connie Kalitta for 7 years .We signed a contract back in 2007 but gave away some daily credit protection and reduced some work rules. While I didn't vote because I was ineligible on probation, I was thrilled about the 1st year pay raise. The end result was a higher pay scale but lower w-2s for everyone because our pay protections and value of a day was reduced to nothing. We worked longer periods of time for the same pay. Today in 2015 I'm watching this exact same scenario unfold at AA, and I want you to heed this warning that the pay rates are a distraction. Your QOL is at risk, and in times of such economic prosperity if you want to sell it, make them pay for it.

You sure about that ?

How much of Charlotte could end up with Group I flying and/or elimination of any and all Group III ? How about the same equation in DCA or Philly ? If PHX closes and everyone there needs to move or commute, what do their NEW options look like once they have no future negotiating leverage because Parker has all he wants or needs (not that you care) ?

Many pilots in those doms intend to transfer for various reasons anyway and might have to in the future to maintain their present Group pay scale. What if they contract like PHL to become mostly International Widebody (fed by Group I), but smaller overall ?

Are HBT and combining divisions actually BENEFITS to pilots that you'd be left out of ?

Combined divisions in your domiciles doesn't sound so bad as it exists already and no one is complaining and isn't THAT one of the arguments being made by some Easties as to why Parker's demands aren't so bad ?

HBT isn't a benefit with the exception it may crate additional jobs in SOME domiciles, but I don't recall present East doms being one of them.

Just what are you REALLY missing out on ?