Originally Posted by Sputnik

Its interesting you see that as an attack. I see it as a succinct summary of your posts.

If you see t as a misrepresentation, maybe you should consider reassessing your writing.

Originally Posted by m3113n1a1

Sailing is correct here.

I'm a strong union supporter, but this last year the communications from this MEC have been puzzling. Trying to get us riled up about a non scope violation with regards to Korean, trashing greenslips, weird, targeted polling, releasing the minimum balance plan grenade with no explanation, obsessively fighting skyhub, and now this 28 million number which is obviously BS with no context. Do they think we're dumb?

Even with all that being said, I think we'll get the contract that we deserve it just might take a bit of time. This pilot group is wise and we'll vote accordingly.

Originally Posted by crazyjaydawg

This contract isn’t about pay rates anymore and that’s what the company fears most. It’s going to be a fun ride ahead.

Originally Posted by Trip7

Word on the street is the Union's opener is a $4 Billion or 100% PWA cost increase. I think we know what the NMB's response will be as does the Company

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Trip7

Capt Graham has emailed a rebuttal to the pilot group. Said Ryan's letter contained several inaccuracies, including the $28 million quote

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Gspeed

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.

Originally Posted by Funk

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.

Originally Posted by notEnuf

You still have to check this box. Everyone knows this is an intentional effort to slow the negotiating schedule. The result of the NMB being involved is the by product management is looking for while espousing great effort. The pretense of cooperation is a complete lie when you haven't even responded to or countered any area of significant cost.

Originally Posted by Gspeed

Section 6 doesn't require mediation. The parties involved could come to a deal on their own without any outside assistance or intervention. That rarely happens in the airline world (not sure about railway negotiations). It is only required if either side sees self-help as necessary or the end game in order to achieve their objectives. I agree with your other point, though.