We agree again. Love you, t.

 

Thanks for reacting to the question. I’m sorry you feel I’m clumsily trying to bait you. To be honest, I do feel like you’re dancing a bit around this one, because I think you don’t have a good answer. I don’t think there is a real good answer for leaks.

I’ve been thinking a lot about the stories we’re being force-fed, and the way they’re being supported by rumors and leaks. I categorize the rumors in two varieties:

1) True
2) False

False, we all understand is BS, and politically-motivated, but what if they’re true? What exactly would be leaked, if the rumors are true? Well, the rumors purport to be describing the intent of the majority. The majority runs the show, so… the rumors purport to be describing, well, our intentions. That’s pretty valuable stuff. If guys are leaking true stuff about the majority’s intentions, they’re leaking very valuable stuff. If you say “the majority wants to agree to concessions”, and you’re not lying, then you’re telegraphing our intentions, and Mike Campbell is grateful. If you say “99whatever” is coming, you’re helping Mike.

True = valuable
False = lying

Leaks are either false (lying), or true (expensive).

 

Is debate good?

Is information power?

Last round I knew we were.going to make scope concessions. This time it caught be flat footed. Maybe the rumors are not true. If they are true, the line pilots deserve to provide input.

Was "Do you want to make scope concessions?" on the survey? I guess I missed it.

CDO redux.

SS different DALPA day.

 

If my objective is a min credit line, if not reserve, how would I word this in PBS? (All I see is "Else Next Bid Group.")

 

Campbell knows there's a majority on the MEC that wants to be "constructive".
That's our stated policy. Its not news to management.

The leaks serve a purpose.
The leaks are calculated to help the MEC figure out what will pass memrat.
The leaks help the MEC figure out which of these proposed concessions the line pilots think are reasonable.
They've probably got more useful "feedback" in the last 10 days than anything the survey could tell them. Most of these rumored concessions weren't even on the survey.

I just want to make sure there's not a repeat of C2012. I want to make sure its the MEC that makes the decisions this time and not just the administration and the semi-permanent "career ALPA" guys who are always hovering around the MEC.

 

A week or two ago, when curiosity was rampant, the leaks were ostensibly packaged as an effort by the heroic minority to change votes, so that the evil majority wouldn't give away the farm. Since we all want to know what's happening at every turn of negotiations, we all read with interest.

Now that the hangover has passed, and maybe pilots are starting to wonder about the liabilities of leaks and rumors, suddenly it's the MEC that's leaking so that it knows how much it can concede?

Implausible, and it makes the guys that were propagating and pushing leaks look like liars in hindsight. Either the leaks are true (and valuable), or they're lies.

I think that instead of marketing leaks and rumors one way then another the next, we should let the process be followed, and avoid leaks. I think most everyone understands that rumors and leaks offer a very short-term satisfaction, but they leave us all poorer over the long run.

 

So based on APC feedback to leaks, the MEC now knows:
1. Don't even think about touching PS. PS is our payback for more than a decade of concessions.
2. We will revolt over one more seat, mile or passenger of scope relief.
3. Add a little more pay and credit to vacation and we will be content.
4. Touch the already concessionary sick leave one more time and we will vote no.
5. Another 1-2% into DPSP would be nice.
6. We didn't create the training problem, in fact we tried to prevent it. Don't ask us to fix it without LOTS of $$$$.

7. Based on the rumors, we will vote "NO" to the TA, keep what we have and update pay rates to to AA/UAL every 18 mos.

 

deleted....

 

I don't think its that absolute. There can be significant value in leaks/rumors if it helps unite the pilot group against concessions we may otherwise be about to sign into a TA (or build up resistance and unity in order to vote no to a TA with concessions).

In this negotiating environment there really shouldn't be any give backs to our already deeply concessionary book. None. The argument can be made that there may be some tweaking here or there that could be interpreted as very minor concessions but with gains in the same section. Like a small work rule change that cost 30 jobs total, but the same section has work rule gains that generate 100 jobs total. Something like that, maybe, maybe could be explained.

But the rumors we're hearing are some pretty deep concessions. More DC-9 sized RJ's? Reducing sick leave and/or increasing harassment/verification? Getting rid of OE trip buys, longer training freezes, pay banding, redefining block time, gutting green slips for reserves, trading PS for pay, possibly even from the upper "unlimited" tier, etc.

Those are the rumors we're hearing. Even if they are bizarrely interpreted as the will of the pilot group, like from a ridiculous interpretation of the survey like "we would rather lose 500 jobs to work rules than be forced to dig ditches 18 hours a day with no health insurance" etc. then telegraphing ill concieved concessions can actually benefit us.

First of all its way easier to head things like this off at the pass pre-TA. And maybe that's happened at least to a small degree with the crying guy rumor getting yelled at by a rep for his concessionary attitude (if true).

It also helps tune the group into looking for embedded concessions instead of zooming into Section 3 with tunnel vision and graying out to everything else.

Should a concessionary TA be presented to us, if the group has been bulding up a "oh hail naw!" level of resistance to concessions and they end up in a TA anyway, it makes it a lot less difficult to vote no, particularly among the "I'll wait to see what's in it before I judge" segment, and maybe even among some of the "automatic yes" voters as well. If we get a pathetic concessionary fulled TA with moderate to nice Section 3 raises (partially paid for with concessions) it becomes much easier to vote no, even among lame threats like the NC will quit and the evil NMB will park you for years for not agreeing to concessions and all that nonsense.

So there can be value to rumors, particularly when true. Even some of the untrue ones may have been true before reps phone's started lighting up from the rumor in the first place.

This is not the time for concessions, and we don't need to "self fund" anything. I would rather see a clean TA with less of a raise than a higher raise partially paid for with concessions, particularly some of the asinine rumors about scope sick leave and productivity.

 

What gloopy said