It's probably best we all avoid discussions about key data points that could be used to identify one's self. As far as rates go, there was a point in the not so distance past when AAL rates jumped past ours and we had new hires no showing. I feel rates and opportunity do affect hiring, just look at Alaska. However, swapping out a seniority number for a pay bump, not so much.

I agree on retro. I do not find it coincidental that during one of the best negotiating times in history (record RASM, inflation and a real pilot shortage), the UAL MEC dropped a TA that was so bad, it stalled any chance of making near term gains against inflation. All of these airlines were floating rumors of raises; they were just that, rumors to get the troops past summer and into the doldrums of being overstaffed.

We said the same thing, the last sentence was in reference to rates. DAL has always viewed PS as "compensation" from their end.

 

Inflation is the baseline. I need to see year 1 at inflation +5% minimum on rates. That's roughly 20% today. I also need QOL, retirement, sick, vacation availability, and per diem improvements. But no escalator clause is still the hard no.

 

I'm aligned with this as well, but what is an escalator clause?

If you mean a permanent evergreen inflation or inflation plus clause, I like it as a concept. But I'm not sure how the NMB will view that as a labor demand. I don't think that's ever been achieved anywhere outside of government, who are the ones that cause and control inflation as well as the lower fake number its always reported to be.

Government causes inflation and government has the keys to our negotiations. There have been times in the past where the NMB has told pilot groups they simply cannot ask for certain things (like regionals trying to directly get mainline Scope). Other things may be in the zone for what can be asked or demanded, but the amount/extent still comes into play.

If a PWA meets all the stated goals and monetary targets you mentioned except the permanent C.P.Lie escalator (assuming that's what you meant) I'm not sure voting it down solely for that reason would result in anything better. Especially compared to taking the win now with inflation and adequate retro with other QOL improvements.

All of this may be academic anyway if the Scope AIP is a dud. I'm highly skeptical of it but will reserve judgement until I see all of the language and try and find "loopholes" of "we didn't think they'd do THAT!" because we all know by now that every such oversight like that is by design on their part. They know exactly what they intend to do. The South Africa and Australian growth ULH flights are the perfect examples of this coincident with a "global scope" emphasis; They add a lot of block hours they want and need to add anyway because we don't have a "JV partner" in those sub-theaters to do it (for now) so of course they want a deal that allows them, because of those hours they want to add anyway, to be able to either pull down hours or add less hours in theaters with robust "partners" already.

Its very obvious that's highly likely their plan. If there aren't adequate theater protections in it (and I bet there aren't...simply saying it can't go to zero is an asinine hard sell straw man) then it will likely be voted down in the memory rat. Since the entire Negotiations-AIP-TA-LOA process is so long for this, starting over in Section 1 would be a significant (but maybe necessary) setback.

Getting a first of its kind permanent pay raise in C19 that transcends generations and has an unlimited upside (limited only by CPI or whatever we use) is morally right but I'm not sure legally sound with the NMB as its never been done before.

 

We already have it, it just needs to be more effective. (instead of less like we did last time) If non cons get a raise during section 6, we get the same raise. Done.

 

I think it should be legal. My understanding is our contract has not expired it has just become amendable. I think under the RLA contracts never expire, so having a clause that continues to increase pay past an amendable date should be doable and should be a requirement of this upcoming contract.

 

If inflation protection pay tables are a "first of its kind," then it truly would be industry leading.

The airline industry hasn't seen this kind of inflation in over 41 years. The post-9/11 industry has never seen inflation of this magnitude. In these unprecedented times, we need unprecedented results.

A5S

 

Vote in November. That is the first step towards fixing Murica!

 

Its the NMB that would need convincing of this. Unless the company agreed, which they would clearly resist.

A 3-4 year deal with an early opener but with 100+ years of guaranteed raises "locked in" seems like a hard sell to the NMB which is a government entity and inflation is a government issue.

 

Contracts are written this way all the time to protect suppliers. See my signature link. 3.B.4. has been a part of our PWA for as long as I can remember.

 

Maybe I'm missing the point of some of the posts here but why would asking for CPI raises be illegal?

We ask for a ton of items that we will never get but we ask anyway. I don't see how asking for inflationary raises is an issue. It's literally status quo and there is argument that it's still less than status quo.

Getting government rates on per diem, which it should absolutely be, is the same principle. Get that and now we have precedent.