There is a direct linkage between corporate profits and sustained payrates.

We will extract more value if the corporation is or is projected to be profitable (there's more value to extract).

A JAL deal is a potential opportunity. JAL just got new management this week. SkyTeam has made a compelling case to switch from OneWorld. Whether or not they do remains to be seen. If they do switch, there are a range of options available to management short of a JV, some of which requires our agreement, but many of which do not. That's a long answer to say "maybe" but we'll have to see what the deal is.

 

Slow,

This is the only response I could find from you to Carl and I couln't find the "grass skirt" comment, even though I remember seeing it. (man this thread goes by fast!)

I will just say that I had a different take on it than Carl. But, I only had "line pilot information." A am not an insider. When we got call in honest, I didn't think it was because we had a large amount of sick calls. I thought it was because of a combination of things:

1. NWA's crappy commuter policy. (Let us know if you can't make the flight and we will let you know if we need you.)
2. NWA's skeleton staffing.
3. One individuals ability to cancell a flight because of #2 and some extent #1.

The rumor I heard is that we had an international 747-400 flight cancel because a pilot called in sick because he couldn't make it to work because of commuting issues and didn't want to lose the value of a 12 day trip (His whole months pay.)

When you consider: 1.) that the -400 really didn't have any open time for him to make up the lost trip 2.) the company had no obligation to get him to work after he called for help 3.) and if he did call for help to get to work, he had no way of knowing if they would positive space him or find someone else to cover the flight, you might see the bind the guy was in.

Like I said, that's the rumor I heard. So, there was no need IMO for NWA to lawyer up. Mainly, because of point #3. How are you going to sue an individual for calling in sick, when you have to prove that he wasn't sick mentally, physically, emotionally? Plus, most pilots don't have the money to cover the cost of a lost -400 flight to NRT.

IMO, they didn't give us call in honest because they were being nice. They probably calculated the cost of increasing staffing vesus the cost of giving a few guys positive space to work every now and then and came up with option two as being the cheaper of two evils (spending money). Believe me, they were and are smart. Probably the smartest in the business.

I agree with you and don't think we should challenge anyones manhood or fashion sense to make our points, because it creates disunity. Which, potentially, in in the next few years, is the last thing we need.

New K Now

 

Of course now that has to cover all the disability payments and up to 60 Million a year in sick leave. So the fund is decreasing in value.

 

Outstanding response. +1.

One comment to clarify my previous post, AMR and UAUA both sued their collective bargaining agents and got court ordered injunctive relief for increased sick usage. DAL got injunctive relief over the refusal to fly overtime. If the facts were as Carl alleged, then it would seem that a vindictive NWA management would have used the same tools that other managements used to great effect. Your version makes much more sense.

 

Uh oh. If it makes sense, it's probably not what happened.

 

The way I remember it.........and I'm old..........

Was that management was not happy that they didn't see a big drop in sick call usage that they thought they should have with call in honest. I don't know what it did over the long term, but I know for a while there I was worried that call in honest would get canned. But, the numbers must have been working for them because it even survived bankruptcy, vs 50% deadhead and, as slow said, other "over reaching".

I'm sure some guys called in sick vs call in stupid under the old system (I never did and have the "failure to commutes" to prove it). My impression was it was more an unanticipated consequence to tight manning. IE, we had no open time (especially in the summer) to modify your schedule. Your kid has an event of some kind and momma says you're going........bingo bango, your sick.

Now, do I agree with that? NO!!...........but I know I'm preaching to the choir when I say bean counters want a bunch of stuff and then whine when reality bits them.

 

Just because you don't want something to be so doesn't change reality. People will use sick time at their discretion.

Ostriches don't need to be in union leadership.

That holds true for alfa and slows comments on the same subject. It is what it is. If you want to act like management and ask for sick notes, so be it. Go be in management. Don't represent me anymore.

I've worked for a company that did that. You don't want to go down that road.

 

The following is all speculation. This "BoB", as far as I know, doesn't exist...

However, as long as we're speculating, the company would only have had recourse when:

A) Any action was a collective action, instigated, encouraged and/or organized by the association, and NOT the action of 5000+ individual pilots acting individually, and;

B) There was evidence of such action.

Seeing as NWA in the past had successfully lobbied for court orders to seize a FA's hard drive on their PERSONAL computer, upon which they THOUGHT contained evidence of an organized work action, they were more than capable of pursuing this had they had even a schosh of evidence. To think that NWA wouldn't go for the legal jugular when they had an opportunity is just silly.

This leads to a couple of conclusions:

1) Any such action, if it existed at all, was not a collective action, and therefore ALPA is held harmless (+1 in the "stones" category)

2) No bankable evidence was extant

3) NWA feared even worse labor relations and/or breakdown of operations caused by any legal action. In this case, the "reputation" of the pilot group having "stones" would have certainly played a part in dissuading the company from futher crank stepping. (so that's another +1).

If the company thinks you are going to just bend over and take it, they'll give it to you time and again. If they think you'll go all bat sh!t crazy on them, they'll think twice.

Just because you LOOK crazy doesn't mean you are....maybe just crazy like a fox.

And I'm not seeing too many foxes these days, other than in Super's posts...

Nu

 

I agree with Nu, I never knew anyone that did BOB and I think lots of guys misunderstand what it was.

What we lost in the bankruptcy contract was block or better (BOB) per leg. What we got was BOB per TRIP. Now, where that comes into play is, say, you have a return to the gate on day one of your trip that gained you say 20 minutes. What you would see would be a slow but sure loss of that time as you underflew legs.

Now, to underfly means the block times were big and NWA had big blocktimes for their on time rate. Personally, I like big block times cuz I like being paid for doing nothing and more importantly making my commuter flight.

So, please, if your going to bash us about BOB (somewhat an urban legend)..........know what you're talking about.

 

Nu, excellent post!! You hit the nail on the head. No one is advocating a scorched earth policy, however we musn't be so "rational" that the company knows it and comes to count on it. I personally feel that our union has done an excellent job over the past few years. However, and it's a big however, we must not let the company forget that if they forget about our sacrifices, if they stop playing nice with us, if they stop inviting us to the table then all bets are off.....