Originally Posted by Abouttime2fish

Dam$ it Denny, now you’ve done it!!










is it 5 o’clock yet?

Originally Posted by Noworkallplay

As for the monthly reduced line guarantee please allow me to add some perspective. We have language for a reduced line guarantee at FedEx. A little history first. It was in the initial contract prior to ALPA coming on board. So call it inherited I guess. I'm also guessing this is why ALPA is throwing the idea around at other properties. It was massively improved in our 2015 CBA. The 2015 improvements added requirements to offer early retirements and LOA's prior to reduced line guarantees. It also added a system metrics that is suppose to alleviate the big pay disparities between seats and bases and aircraft as well as other things. Prior to its improvements it was activated in the great recession. It created massive animosity within the pilot group that lingers still today. Like all things it created winners and losers. You had big line guarantee disparities from one base and seat compared to other bases and seats. You also had some bases and seats not picking up OT while others did. I still hear stories of crews being flown on corporate jets to Anchorage to fly the OT that base wouldn't fly. In the end did it save jobs? Who knows. We did not furlough but, its hard to say if we would have even if we didn't have reduced line guarantees. Most people on property during the period of time it was used (not me) say they wish it wasn't in our contract. We added a lot of protections and language to "equalize" the pain but, I'm not sure in reality it would be so "equal". As we know every airline has its group that ho's out and others who do the min and go home. This would continue and did continue at FDX even during the reduced line guarantees. It creates animosity and divisiveness that will never be mended. So in closing keep a couple things in mind. If you decide to go down this reduced line guarantee path it will stick most likely forever. It will create divisiveness and divide. It will create winners and losers regardless of the language. Those who want to hooooo out will always find a way. So don't think by doing this it will be any better than the furlough divisiveness that is created.

Originally Posted by gloopy

Ugh this again. OK so how do you think we would have had a contract by now exactly? All gains, or do we sell back work rules and scope for a COLA plus a few % you know, "the Delta method" etc?

How would we be better off right now going into this with higher payrates, but worse work rules and scope and who knows what other hiden gems? That would most likely lead to more furloughs. Or, show us how we would have gotten a huge walk off grand slam win win win contract, on time or early, with no givebacks?

Originally Posted by sailingfun

We were not going to see worse work rules prior to covid.

Originally Posted by sailingfun

We were not going to see worse work rules prior to covid. We could have had reasonable improvements in many areas. What we end up getting going forward could be ugly depending on what our competitors due.

Originally Posted by gloopy

Not only is that extremely speculative, but it seems highly unlikely. While I agree the 25% DC and 250K+ walk off "plus ups" were likely viewed as 3-5 year NMB timeout non starters, let's hear your bullet point CBA in this alternate reality. What would this hypothetical contract...delivered on time or early...look like...with no givebacks nonetheless, if only our union didn't suck so much? This makes no sense but let's see what you think would have been possible. Because after we see that, I have another question:



Um, OK. So had our union not sucked so much etc, we'd have this nice CBA with gains and no work rule givebacks. Cool! Awesome! Epic! But we'd be right where we are now...but with even higher costs, relative to ourselves now as well as to our competitors going forward.

So that would help us how exactly?

Originally Posted by sailingfun

We were not going to see worse work rules prior to covid.

Originally Posted by sailingfun

I think we could have had a 8% raise at signing, 18% DC plan, 14 hour long call, tightened scope, 4% raises each year, 330 bundled with the 350, furlough provisions updated to pilots on the property 31Dec19, ALV reduced to 78 in exchange for 71 to 85 spread, no reserve trips assigned beyond ALV plus 5. All the above items combines would be a small percentage of our actual ask.
I don’t quite comprehend the last part of your post. I gather you think it would be better to negotiate from a position of weakness verses strength. Keep one other thing in mind. Our entire justification for our 3 billion ask was the profitability of the company. When mediation resumes what do we say to the mediator now? What will the company ask? Where will our competitors be at. Will they be at a higher or lower baseline if they grant concessions had we completed the contract?

Originally Posted by Denny Crane

Agreed.



Do you really think it's going to any worse than if we had come to a deal earlier? My guess is we would end up in the same place anyway.... The only plus would have been some extra pay from Jan 1 to whenever anything is agreed to.....which I believe is highly in doubt.

Denny