For me, this contract is about:

We never had a C19, therefore bypassing it will make the involuntary extension of a given contract "past practice" going forward unless that manuever is dealt with, specifically.

Inflation

The optimization was a change to status quo, although it could be argued we unknowingly negotiated it away in 2016 with changes to the callout ladder.

Where other airlines stand at this point is irrelevant.

.02

We have a similar tiered system already with WS and GS. I'll fly on a GS, but someone can underbid me with a WS or OOBWS.

A full reverse auction provision in the PWA would absolutely make heads explode. It would pair nicely with surge pricing when the company is trying to fill a trip on short notice. I can cover a trip in 3 minutes at 300% pay or 1 hour for 250% or 2 hours at 200 etc... The spreadsheet optimizers on both sides could sit in front of screens all day long and never have to step outside to breathe fresh air.

Speaking of fresh air, there is a GS funded mountain bike calling my name...

I don't agree that the optimizer/sodomizer was a "change to the status quo." It sucks badly, and the company gets ZERO sympathy from me when pilots call in fatigued, etc. However, the optimizer is merely (at least from the company's view) software improvements that allow them to run a more efficient operation. They would argue that these improvements somehow being a "change to the status quo" is like saying going from paper paychecks to direct deposit is a "change." They will argue that if software was as capable in 1975 as it is today, that the sodomizer would have been implemented then as well.

Except that they could have changed it before we were in negotiations and decided to do it while we are in negotiations. Therefore I think it can very well be argued it is a change in status quo. Your argument about paper paychecks is weak as it can easily be argued that there was no material change. Not so with the optimizer.

I actually hope that an arbitrator/mediator would agree with you and not me. The company will argue--endlessly--that the sodomizer is no different than getting rid of navigators, then FEs, then line of time bidding in favor of PBS. All those were significant changes, but not anti-labor "changes to the status quo" but merely the endless march of "progress."

Now I was very supportive of the picketing about our bad schedules. That was a good use of our resources in the appropriate manner. I just think we will have a tough time convincing the feds that control the negotiating timeline that the sodomizer in and of itself was a change to the status quo as the RLA sees it.

Obviously I'm not a lawyer but historically low credit and high block days are very real changes in work conditions and QOL. To argue otherwise is absurd. Legal or not - who knows. But saying this is like going from a paper check to an electronic deposit is a horrible analogy and I'm pretty sure a court would agree.

This change occurred before we opened up negotiations. It's been steadily getting what worse since 2018.

We had the optimizer pre negotiations. Dialing it up to 11 was a change to the status quo. I'll leave it to the legal experts to determine if that meets the Sec 6 criteria.

When labor does things 100% "by the book" that can be a status quo change. But when management does it, it must be OK because they're just following the book.

We lose 100% of the grievances we don't file.

So much potential material here - do I go with Spinal Tap - "ours go to 11" to do we send a cyborg Arnold back to 2017 to destroy the sodomizer before it goes live, wait that was Skynet, never mind. :D

Scoop