Yes but the NMB is disinterested in management/labor groups who show up with a long list of disagreements. I know this because I personally know one current and one former mediator. If management has a long list and thinks the NMB is gonna solve it for them, then they will have a rude awakening. The same goes for us.

 

I posted this earlier. I doubt the NMB will put more than a token effort into our mediation for at least the next year.

With only a dozen mediators to work on hundreds of rail and airline employee groups, the NMB places a high premium on only assigning mediators to a frequent bargaining schedule when it believes the union and management are close to what it calls the “zone of reasonableness” – in plain terms, when the two sides have moved away from their opening positions, have finished bargaining on the majority of their contract and are closer to compromise on the remaining items. Usually a mediator will not be assigned until the parties have only a few open items left to bargain; of course, these are often also the most critical, time-intensive contract sections like pay, benefits and scope.

 

Agreed. The company is smart enough to know this and is likely taking this action to park us for awhile. The games have begun.

 

Honest question, if the company is trying to run the clock and delay any reckoning, why not go through the motions for another two and a half months before seeking mediation? If they want to stall, it seems silly that they would give up 2.5 months of free delay.

 

The next meetings would require the company to put out openers/table positions on the money sections of the contract. They don't want those on the street before summer.

 

Good question. There must be a reason, and I'm not buying what JG put out, at least not at face value.

Thinking Strategically, I'm not sure that the company really has that many things they 'need'. So why come to an agreement? The Section 23 asks may just be fodder to be tabled for show later. But really, in their view, what to they need relief from? Not much, I think they are happy to let negotiations languish indefinitely.

Mgmt's true (near term) need is getting through summer 2020. They have already moved a ton of vacation out of summer to solve part of their problem (and according to BS on sky net, it's all due to leap year and TLV? That's an excuse, not a reason). I posit they have calculated if they park us with the NMB, solidify status quo, throw GS at the remaining problem to get through summer, they might see a reason to come to a TA. Until they really need to come to an agreement, they won't. And I submit the FA union push is in the mix to a degree - that does not help our cause. At all.

Our most compelling argument with the NMB is this, IMHO: WE gave huge in BK to save the company. Now, they are making Billions upon Billions, and they should put the lost value back. But they'd rather just coast on the current PWA indefinitely.

 

Again, honest question: Would they be required to put those proposals on the money positions on the table, or would that be the desired agenda, with “readiness” of the negotiators (or pick your reason) that might preclude actual details?

If leaked details of their openers were their driving motivation, why not open with 6, 4, 4, 4? Or pick your semi benign bump up numbers and counter against the union’s retirement proposal? It would seem reasonable enough, and might stall the negotiations just as effectively until the joint application for mediation date without burning too many bridges.

One other thought: if our two closest competitors are also in negotiations, but aren’t remotely as profitable as we are as a company, wouldn’t a prudent move be to try to earnestly close a contract? Knowing that pattern negotiating would raise expectations for those pilot groups, despite either having the financial room to afford much more, it would seem like an easy win for our management. It would put additional heat on UAL, which seems to be in a cage match with its pilots over low end scope, and would put even more heat on AA, which likely can’t afford much of a raise considering their leveraged debt position and other operational issues. It seems we could steal even more market share of premium customers by squaring away our labor situation and simultaneously causing more problems for our closest peer competitors.

 

Just a few points

In an “up” contract negotiation, time is on managements side (there is no retro on items except pay) and the opposite is true if it is concessionary environment.

Typically in an “up” contract, labor is the one who ask for mediation as they want a resolution and a countdown to the ultimate leverage.

The NMB mediates and does not arbitrate. Their tools that they can use to pressure one side or the other are to threaten a release (pressure on the company) or “time” when it comes to us. If we aren’t negotiating, then the longer we live under the current agreement.

So, if you are being objective, ask yourself why the company would file first? The crap about what they are asking for in scheduling by the way, is a non player. Similar things are asked for in almost every negotiation. Throw away items if you will. Will they show flexibility once in mediation? Will we?

My educated guess is that in THEIR eyes,(not saying it is true) there isn’t even a starting point to counter based on the size of our ask. They want the NMB to make a judgment of the reasonableness of our ask and certainly they will attempt to provide what they consider to be a reasonable offer in the mean time.

Considering what the NMB actually has in their tool bag, time will tell the tale. Frequent negotiating sessions? Then we are in the zone. Infrequent or parked? Then we have some work to do.

 

From reading your post I gather I'm slightly senior to you hired in 2014. Not sure your regional history but man your opinions are nothing like guys from the regionals.

Spending a decade with **** work rules and crappy pay definitely puts a perspective on what management thinks of labor.

You sound like a cheerleader and the company can do no wrong. Those " gains" highlighted in NN are things AA and UAL already have. We shouldn't be matching them, we should be setting the bar higher. 8000 pilots need to be hired in the next 10 years. Our CBA should make every up and coming pilot want Delta.

If you want to be a 4th floor dude then go for it. But telling us Dalpa is reaching for the stars while cheering our current PWA is laughable.

 

Again, you can attack me all you want, but the reality of the situation is the perspective of the Mediator will drive the next phase of Negotiations.

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk