Gunter

We now have to wait a year for section 6. So what. Many say it takes up to 2 years to reach an impasse, traditionally, after a contract becomes amenable.

I sincerely believe the next 12 months will continue to shave time off of negotiation in section 6 when we get there. We should be ready to picket 6 months after this 12 month "interim" talk period is complete, if required. I'll be ready.

MaxKts

We should be ready to picket now - not that we have to or would want to but, we should be ready.

Although, it will still take a minimum of 2 years after section 6 openers before we will even be close to having a chance no matter how much "interim negotiating" is done!

AerisArmis

Not sure if it's the case but in the past, after an issue was decided, there was a revote with the expectation that the reps on the losing side would vote with the majority to show a united unanimous vote. When EI in Subic maintained his "NO" vote on the FDA LOA, it was the first time I could remember a vote that wasn't 13-0. If I recall, DW put a lot of pressure on EI to tow the line but he declined. Or so the story goes.

FreightDawgyDog

Just curious..what should we be willing and ready to picket over now, or are you just advocating the old Northwest ALPA "Cobra" stance (ready to strike at anything)?

MaxKts

Not advocating anything and I didn't say "willing"! I only said "ready".

If you need 80+ hours a month just to make ends meet you are not ready!

Tuck

Huh. Do you really think the cornerstones will even be touched during these interim discussions? Heck they can TA everything but those sections and it'll still take forever. The 2 years is not what it takes to have meaningful discussions, they could rip it out in a month if desired. It takes time for other reasons and I don't believe we are doing anything to reduce that time during interim discussions. Is there anyone you fly with who thinks we are in contract discussions right now?

FreightDawgyDog

The way I see this is it was a win-win for the company either way the vote went. When we passed the LOA in the first place it didn't matter to them as that was what they wanted. If we gave up 3% this time, they don't have to pay it and then we have to negotiate for it all over again and try and get a "signing bonus" for the next contract. Didn't the NC put out a message line last year about the value of money now instead of later? If we vote for it they don't have to enter serious contract talks for another year. The question we as a group had to answer was which lose-lose for us was worse once the LOA passed last year. I think we got it right personally by taking the money now and starting to build the unity we will need when we enter Sec 6.

PicklePausePull

FDD, the future value of money is a good metric to have made this decision, though not the only metric. Quality of life issues and safety are also important. But given the later, I still think the future value of the 3% will fall short of the monetary improvements that could have been negotiated at an earlier date. In other words, the 3% falls far short of the monetary improvements to the individual pilot that are now put off for yet another year. Discount those costs to present day dollars and I think it is obvious why the company offered this route. It forestalls the large costs they will bear for the improvements we are seeking. On top of that is the ever tightening grip of the Optimizer, getting more work out of us for the same pay and curtailing quality of life. I know many pilots who now use sick leave as a fatigue mitigating issue between trips.

I don't understand how taking the 3% suddenly builds unity for the now forestalled section 6 negotiations. I think it communicates to the company that for the most part, we are happy with the status quo. That doesn't appear to me to make for a foundational argument that we need some serious improvements going forward.