C2019 Negotiations And Approval
10-04-2018, 02:47 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Fastest Hunk of Junk in the Galaxy
Posts: 1,657
Originally Posted by RonRicco
The last time I heard (and it may have changed since then) it was our turn to present a counter offer to the company. Nobody is saying accept the company offer, but failing to provide a counter offer means we either opened too low... or reinforces the points made previously.
10-04-2018, 04:27 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Originally Posted by Han Solo
This is not how you negotiate. Let's assume the company has a used car with a value of $10k. We offer $9k and the company asks for $1M. Just how much should we budge on our $9k offer when the company's demand is out in left field? This is the AM JV the company has proposed. There's no counter to their garbage until they present a reasonable offer.
10-04-2018, 06:34 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Fastest Hunk of Junk in the Galaxy
Posts: 1,657
Originally Posted by sailingfun
Can you give us a hint what the offers were?
https://www.alpa.org/~/media/DAL/Doc...r-20180423.pdf
10-04-2018, 07:48 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: Captain
Posts: 821
Originally Posted by Han Solo
No hint required, the company proposal was spelled out in an ALPA communication.
https://www.alpa.org/~/media/DAL/Doc...r-20180423.pdf
https://www.alpa.org/~/media/DAL/Doc...r-20180423.pdf
This does not bold well for upcoming negotiations if we can’t figure out a way to entice the the company to negotiate. We would be looking at much longer time frames comapred to years passes.. heck, I don’t have that many left..
10-04-2018, 08:10 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Fastest Hunk of Junk in the Galaxy
Posts: 1,657
Originally Posted by RonRicco
So what is the organization that I pay 1000s of dollars a year doing to move them our way?
This does not bold well for upcoming negotiations if we can’t figure out a way to entice the the company to negotiate. We would be looking at much longer time frames comapred to years passes.. heck, I don’t have that many left..
This does not bold well for upcoming negotiations if we can’t figure out a way to entice the the company to negotiate. We would be looking at much longer time frames comapred to years passes.. heck, I don’t have that many left..
10-04-2018, 09:55 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,458
It seems that for C2016 pay is less of an issue, whereas scope and QOL are even bigger issues than C2015. It is great we are focusing on these items. The downside as has been pointed out previously is that there is no retro on QOL or scope. Let that sink in for a while. From the company standpoint, the more we ask for in QOL and scope vs pay, the more it benefits them to stall.
I agree we should seek gains in scope and QOL, especially scope. This will require a strong unified pilot group. The good news is scope and QOL continue paying dividends long after a pay raise, so it is worth the effort.
I agree we should seek gains in scope and QOL, especially scope. This will require a strong unified pilot group. The good news is scope and QOL continue paying dividends long after a pay raise, so it is worth the effort.
10-04-2018, 02:12 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: Captain
Posts: 821
Originally Posted by Han Solo
I pay the same organization and I'd prefer they hold the line and improve our current JV language rather than capitulate. It takes 2 to tango and if the company makes unreasonable demands without offering unreasonable recompense then a stalemate is all we can expect from the union.
This reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Kramer ends his strike at the bagel shop because minimum wage finally matched his demands from 10 years prior.
It doesn’t matter if it is the JV or full blown section 6, I am sure the company would love it if we say “it’s ok we didn’t cave” for the next 10 years and the pilots consider it a victory.
10-05-2018, 12:15 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Originally Posted by Gunfighter
It seems that for C2016 pay is less of an issue, whereas scope and QOL are even bigger issues than C2015. It is great we are focusing on these items. The downside as has been pointed out previously is that there is no retro on QOL or scope. Let that sink in for a while. From the company standpoint, the more we ask for in QOL and scope vs pay, the more it benefits them to stall.
I agree we should seek gains in scope and QOL, especially scope. This will require a strong unified pilot group. The good news is scope and QOL continue paying dividends long after a pay raise, so it is worth the effort.
I agree we should seek gains in scope and QOL, especially scope. This will require a strong unified pilot group. The good news is scope and QOL continue paying dividends long after a pay raise, so it is worth the effort.
Just being honest here.
Denny
10-05-2018, 12:22 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Originally Posted by RonRicco
And where did I say I wanted them to capitulate? I want them to figure out a way to get the company to move our way. The last MC did it to the tune of a billion dollars.
Well, the tone of voice in your posts might lead someone to dry that conclusion. Uhhhhh, by “last MEC” I assume you mean the C2016 MEC. A lot of those members are still on the MEC.
This reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Kramer ends his strike at the bagel shop because minimum wage finally matched his demands from 10 years prior.
Here again you sound like you don’t care what the deal is, just come to a deal.
It doesn’t matter if it is the JV or full blown section 6, I am sure the company would love it if we say “it’s ok we didn’t cave” for the next 10 years and the pilots consider it a victory.
Well, the tone of voice in your posts might lead someone to dry that conclusion. Uhhhhh, by “last MEC” I assume you mean the C2016 MEC. A lot of those members are still on the MEC.
This reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Kramer ends his strike at the bagel shop because minimum wage finally matched his demands from 10 years prior.
Here again you sound like you don’t care what the deal is, just come to a deal.
It doesn’t matter if it is the JV or full blown section 6, I am sure the company would love it if we say “it’s ok we didn’t cave” for the next 10 years and the pilots consider it a victory.
Denny
10-05-2018, 04:21 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,412
What do folks mean by stronger Scope for C2019?
Our section 1 language is already very strong. I believe we are the only airline that has contractual protections for our global widebody flying. What exact language do folks want changed/added? Or by stonger scope do folks mean a good AM JV agreement?
Our section 1 language is already very strong. I believe we are the only airline that has contractual protections for our global widebody flying. What exact language do folks want changed/added? Or by stonger scope do folks mean a good AM JV agreement?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
