I disagree with several points. Ever head of the Scheduling Optimization Team? It was a bunch of no to low-cost items that the pilots had been asking for, but because the company didn't "have" to do it contractually, they just simmered for a long time. Cue the SOT awhile back. We got lots of improvements, such as PS for front-end deviation from DH, bidding for recurrent (no more senior guys getting crappy A period sims unless they want them), vacation slide (a great provision we got from NWA and made even better than they ever had it), etc.

Again, the company didn't have to agree to any of this, and yet out of "goodwill" they did, and all of us have benefited. You don't get that with a "screw you, no screw YOU" relationship.

Are these game-changers? No. But they are still beneficial and appreciated. As for the non-disclosure statements, that has nothing to do with being one of the "in" crowd. Every group of union negotiators, no matter how bad relationships might be between labor and management, sign these things. Otherwise the company won't even start to talk to you, and why should they. If they are trying to plead an economic case, they need to show you numbers (perhaps fictitious, perhaps not) that they don't want others to necessarily see.

I do agree that it is very easy to slip into a comfortable almost too-friendly relationship, and that can lead to bad results for the pilots that you represent. A "constructive" relationship need not be so soft that we can't walk away from a sh!t sandwich. I just want to see ONE example of the "we're gonna take these guys to the cleaners!" approach that has ever worked, other than in message board la la land.

As for the recent communication re: NRT: I was underwhelmed. Essentially I read "management is not going to make their contractually mandated NRT number, so we will let them include HND in those numbers to be legal. In exchange, we will talk more at some future date."

That said, the world changes. This ain't your father's (or NWA father's) NRT operation. If we blindly cling to old ways, we go the way of the dodo. That doesn't mean we give mgmt a blank check to do whatever they want. I for one am glad we are hearing about this issue now, and at least we can keep our reps accountable as we "engage" the company for future changes--and they pony up $$ to us to allow them.

Problem is, the things ALPA gives up are far from "no to low-cost."

Umm...the strike?

Only 11 757's leaving by next spring?
 

I was surprised to hear this on the update. I thought the numbers being thrown around were in the 30-40's by summer 14.

Are you talking the NWA strike? (1997 I believe?). I remember it well. You all (if you were PMNW) conducted an impeccable 2-week strike, and it resulted in a...drum roll...12% raise over either three or four years. Further, once your MEC ratified the post-strike TA, it was immediately back to work--you didn't even have membership ratification at that time (DAL didn't either until 1996).

So while I salute you over a well-conducted (and needed) strike, I would contend that it was a fair at best financial result, and one that today would probably be roundly criticized.

If it was fair, why should it be criticized? Or are you saying it was fair, as in less than good but better than poor.

That was funny right there!

Ooops. I meant EKG.

Scoop

Again, call your rep and talk to him about this. There is potentially more job losses at stake if we do not give relief. Think what you will, but talk to your rep.

He has no point. He's being argumentative and bloviates that bending over is a better approach than fighting.

Sad at best.