Unity of Purpose
 

So we're considering an expedited short-term contract? Someone explain to me how this is going to play in our favor...

Because we are at war with an oil producing country. It serves our best interest to get this done as fast as possible as long as the terms are right. If the terms aren't right, there is significantly more risk now than a year ago of economic conditions not supporting our ask. But, as the email clearly said, if the company wants to play hardball, we will be forced to drag things out (read: 23m7 300% pain for years).

I think it’s smart as long as the gains ($ & work rules) are real and we get the right deal locked in quickly. Then ALPA is back negotiating in a shorter time than usual. I’d guess that the company is desperate to smooth out trip coverage and are willing to pay for it.

Perhaps management is really really wanting something......

Anyway, buckle up and let the games begin.

I think this is a great strategy. Go for mutual gains. Company wants things we want things get it locked in. They want to play hard ball then go the distance.

If nothing else, this will be interesting

LoL

Ok so you double as a contract negotiator, geopolitical strategist, senator, congressman, Sec of War, Sec of State, UN representative, lawyer, doctor, investment banker, energy analyst, hedge fund manager.....is their anything you don't dabble in other than being a bus driver?

I think the simple answer here is the company really really wants something. We'll see how this plays out. Look forward to the DALPA email on the 6th.

Listen to the ALPA podcast. In short, the number of asks or changes this cycle are much lower than C19. That by itself will naturally lead to potentially shorter negotiations...if the company comes to the plate. I am holding back my opinion on the matter until I see the opener email on Monday 4/6.

While that may be true, the email implies that it is DALPA who suggested the shorter term and that initial discussions with executives "suggest" there is "some interest" from the company in this path.

The correct word is actually "there."

This is possible. Giving up auto accept is the key to unlocking our gains.

Weren't we in a hurry to sign the last contract because "the economy is going to tank any minute, let's lock this in."

Sounds similar to the whole not pay-banding certain fleets because "they won't be around much longer."

Not to mention we've been at war with oil producing countries for...how many decades now?

The auto-accepters have given us big leverage though. Thank an auto-accepter.

LOL, ironic, but accurate.

​​​​​​​
+1. We really are in the drivers seat. I understand reluctance to use our leverage, but an early contract with big gains puts UA under the gun to pattern bargain and leapfrog us.

We paused negotiating during the last contract because of COVID which was absolutely the right thing to do. And we rushed to sign an agreement because United and American were about to bend our leverage over a barrel. Our last contract has absolutely nothing to do with any economy tanking. In fact, the economy was roaring back when we signed.

And no, some energy experts predict that 20-30% of oil infrastructure has been destroyed in the middle east. I think you'll find it hard to find a comparison for this level of damage to energy infrastructure in the last 50 years.

And for the record, I'm not suggesting we rush to an agreement. Just that it's in our best interest to not drag out negotiations unnecessarily in the event this conflict isn't wrapped up as quickly as is being advertised

This ^^^^^^^

Lol get Cook to fix my auto fill then and make it fill grammatically correct. Since you probably double as an apple engineer, advisor to the BOD etc etc


Also I will on occasion misspell or misuse words because it's like trolling for Breezy. Always get a bite.

I don't think it implies that.

the nuances here are the company really really wants something and our MEC/NC are measuring and tempering their public messaging

This like what your second contract here?

I just spit club soda all over my phone.

Only you could contort some very basic messaging from the MEC into rambling babble of your distrorted economic understanding.

Oh. We aren't allowed to have opinions here? Only you? By all means, continue.

Whatever....you always act like the smartest person in the room, you're not.

I'm back on topic now. Can't wait to read the email on Monday.

The Engage podcast is much clearer than the email in stating that this is the approach ALPA is seeking.

Personally, I think it’s the wrong approach. Time is on our side as management continues to sweat through massive coverage costs. But I’ll withhold further judgement until details are released.

Disagree. If it wasn't condusive they wouldn't mention the potential of it. The company wants something. If we can stitch it up in short order all the better.

Auto accept is the single most valuable piece of leverage this pilot group has ever had. Management will do everything they can to pry it out of our hands at a discount. Pushing a mediocre, limited scope, short-term deal that plays on the fears of a “forever war” will be their first step.

The MEC said they're not going to do that. "Mediocre" for the sake of expediency.

I'll see myself out until Monday.

If there is some way to get the big executives (new COO?) involved early...and somehow bypass or neuter Gumm's incompetence and ham-fisted underlings, it's worth a shot.
Nothing ever happens in negotiations until Bastian wants it done. If he wants it done early, the only question is if they're willing to pay a premium for it. If not, back to Plan A, I guess. Maybe Bastian wants this off his plate so he can coast into retirement and focus on the important thing: finding his next stewardess baby mamma.

It's got to be worth our while, though.

It’s leverage but in order to cash in that leverage, you have to sell it and let it go. Holding onto the leverage indefinitely does not get us a deal.

Right, but cashing it in for limited, short-term patchwork would be malfeasance. Management could take back auto-accept on Monday if they’re willing to sign a comprehensive, long-term deal that blows away the rest of the industry.

They won’t be doing that anytime soon. If the MEC stays true to their word, then this is going to be a long cycle. I’m fine with that.

Why are we assuming a long term deal is a good thing? Anything longer than 3 years is considered detrimental to pilot groups. A short term deal will certainly not be shorter than 2.

A 3-year deal could easily drag into an 8-year deal if we burn all of our leverage now.

You can't live in a world of FOMO. Exchange auto accept for something valuable now

3 years is standard. I took union statement to mean they want an on-time deal for 3 years with a me-too clause.

I’m for exchanging it for what it’s worth. Handing it back for a small patchwork of improvements is not the answer, as that will prolong (for years) the comprehensive gains that we should be making in section 6.

I think we all agree (and the NC agrees), that exchanging it for something BIG is the goal, and otherwise we’ll play the long game.

I don’t see how you have an issue with that.

Auto-accept offers us enough leverage to achieve something big and comprehensive in section 6. Ignoring the latter would be a mistake.

I will give the MEC/NC the benefit of the doubt that they’re going to play this one correctly.

Our union is strong. This isn’t a regional. Living in fear will get nothing done.

I haven't been here to long enough to qualify that statement, but it sure as heck is valuable.

I still stand by my not-particularly-prophetic statement that the batch size giveaway of 2023 that led to the rise of auto-accept may have been a subtly brilliant move by DALPA. Time will tell.

https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/3...-post1087.html

And yea, all the auto-accept haters (past and present) will (hopefully) soon be shown that they weren't seeing the forest for the trees.

I'm looking forward to seeing what our negotiators cooked up.

Living in fear would mean giving away auto-accept quickly for a handful of items, while ignoring the rest of the contract. It’s worth more than that.

Why not wait and see what they put up before we start calling it a loss?

I am curious the extent that the pilot groups surveys and polls have driven the timeline. They’ve explicitly stated that pilot data drives the proposals, but I don’t think they tied the timeline to pilot input.