Denny,

Maybe the company hasn’t. But what if we haven’t either? Maybe mediation is needed.

I have seen up close and personal an MEC that creates a constantly changing target and one that also reneges on previous direction. We saw some of that during TA2 and SWA’s previous negotiations and it did not go well with the NMB.

I don’t know who is negotiating in good faith and who isn’t. We may show up for every meeting, but are we really negotiating?

We will see based in how much time the NMB gives us. Once a month or less and then I will know who is at fault sans any more data being provided.

Not denying mediation will/would be needed. We have put our entire ask on the table..........has the company done the same? I’m not talking about a conceptual opener but specific details? Has it? I don’t think so. Sounds like they want to go directly to the nuclear option and not follow what was agreed to.

I would like to see the table positions of BOTH sides. Just seeing one only gets you half the story.

Denny

True, but like I said in an earlier post, it is somewhat of a moving target when it is an “up” contract.

We only got all of our table positions out there a couple of weeks ago. It isn’t like you go line by line and say “ok, we offer 5 hours per day vacation etc” and respond to each item line by line. There might be some things in their proposals that are “asks” and I would like to see them.

And by the way it worked in reverse during loa 46. The company was the one who wanted the negotiations and they had their huge list of wants. Our position was somewhat similar to managements in how we responded. DALPA had to look at each item, cost it, and then figure out if they would prefer to give more a little more here, or give a little more there. (Not debating whether LOA46 or any concessionary agreement was needed or went too far)

I guess the point is, until we had all of our “asks” on the table, it made it very difficult for the company to figure out where they could give to stay within their budget. Once it is out there, then the negotiations can really start on the cost items.

The key is.... Does our “ask” create the framework for an agreement at least in the company’s eyes? If it doesn’t, then I would probably do the same thing. Get some neutral eyes on the situation instead of spinning my wheels.

Something else to think about. Typically labor is the first to ask for mediation. Hmmm

And to be clear, I am only trying to provide a little perspective. Other than the MBCP ask, I have really no idea what we are asking for and can’t estimate a cost.

I hope you're right.

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

To meet somewhere in the middle of $28 million and $4 billion?

I’m not sure what you’re trying to imply here.

You're just being pessimistic. We have them right where we want them. Lol.

I just read the negotiator’s notepad about this, and the part where they discussed the company’s intent with section 23 was particularly eyebrow raising. That alone would be a hard “No” from me, and I guess we’ve at least been offered a glimpse of how the company intends to deal with the Gummed up staffing issues.

Agree 100%. Absolutely no concessions in the scheduling section

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Just read the NN as well. Quite pleased with some to the TA'd sections gains:

SC paid over guarantee
GS pay protection for Reserves
Commuter paid parking
Automated Sick/Well call system.

Pretty big QOL gains there

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk