Short answer, yes.

I was at ASA back in 1997 when the pilot group voted down the first TA. What happened there was a little different than a full contract survey. What we did was list the top five items from the agreement that we saw as unacceptable and then inputted a response as to what would be acceptable.

Basically it was a quick and dirty way to get the pilot opinion of what was wrong with the deal.

[QUOTE=Check Essential;1060259]Definitely NOT. It would be way too helpful to the other side.
Management would love to see those results. They MUST be kept confidential.

We just have to trust our guys. I trust them.
Fears of ALPA insiders manipulating the results are just silly.
A lot of people will see those results. The number of people involved in any "conspiracy" to hide or alter the survey results would have to be pretty large. Somebody would blow the whistle.

Its true the negotiators may not follow the survey to the letter when they sit down at the table. That's completely understandable. They will have to come up with a strategy and prioritize their demands based on many factors besides just the survey. The main influence will obviously be the opponent's position. You never know where they will fight the hardest.

Plus, Wall Street and the other employee groups will be watching. There are lots of ways to bump our compensation besides increasing the pay rates and making headlines with a huge percentage number. Of course we raise the rates, but we also make vacation and training worth 4 hours per day. Raise the reserve guarantee to 80 hours. Change the trip rigs and rotation guarantees. Bring back night pay. Raise per diem. Increase the international over-ride. And on and on.
You can do all of that kind of stuff and Wall Street and the other employee groups don't really count it as a huge "pay raise". They don't understand our contract well enough to realize what happened.
We can increase our bottom line by 50% without raising our pay rates by 50%.
The negotiators will need some flexibility. The survey is a tool. It is not some sort of binding document.[/QUOTE]

I agree with tsquare: right on.

Good to know, thanks.

Just a little analysis of the September seniority list makes you wonder about a few things.

I'm an early 2007 hire. I was at 92.89% the day before the SLI and was 92.72 the day after the SLI. Since then I've moved up to 90.76 which is trending in the right direction. Total pilots have dropped from 12430 to 12161 a loss of 269 total positions. 2010 retirements were 187 and so far for 2011 we have had 148 retirements.

Overall, that is not bad considering the economic situation we have been in since 2007. In fact, I would say it is awesome considering the merger and the economy.

The biggest surprise to me is that since the merger there have been 25 guys junior to me leave. I don't think there are many old guys junior to me since I'm a 2007 hire so it makes you wonder where 25 junior guys have went. If C2012 isn't significantly better, not only will we have a tough time finding guys to hire, but more guys that are here will leave for plan B. Looks like 25 junior guys have already done that.

The company can always go to wallstreet and tell them the pilots are demanding a total compensation package increase of ##%. Wallstreet may not know an A320 vs a E-195 but they understand work rules. Heck high school drop outs who love the NFL understand work rules. Whether they do it or not I don't know.

How about a simple 1.2 hours of credit for every block hour flown? Keep 70 hours non guarantee at 70 hours but now it's a 70 hour block min which is 84 hours of pay. 5.15 min becomes 5.25 block min worth 6.18 hours each and every time.

This was we dont tamper with staffing, because remember more staffing means more AEs into every category.

Then increase pay a % and say, see instead of 70% pay increase we only needed only half that... to achieve restoration.

I'm not arguing that some guys haven't moved much. That was never my point. I do have more people under me know then when the arbitrated list was released though. Over twice as many people to be exact.

My point was that people in your position haven't seen much movement for a number of reasons. The two biggest IMO being bankruptcy and 9/11. To further emphasize my point, I stated that people shouldn't expect a ton of movement until the Age 65 retirements start anyway. daldad is complaining because we are supposedly shrinking, & my point was what else did you expect? Two Legacy carriers merged in order to save costs and increase profitability. To think that we would merge and then magically grow organically is foolish IMO. It defeats the purpose of the merger.

Add to that the last 10 years have been worse for growth rather then better. 9/11, SARS, the housing crash, the bank crash, the market crash, one of the worst recessions we've ever seen. UAL parked 100 airplanes and furloughed 1500 pilots. Continental furloughed, UsAir furloughed, ATA, Pace, Skybus, Aloha, to name of few went out of business. I know the lack of projected growth and upward movement is tough to swallow, but it's been A LOT worse for a lot of other people.

There are many other factors that have contributed to the lack of progression, not just mergers, codeshares, & JV's. JMHO

I will ask you the same questions. If you were in the position, would you lie to the pilots or would you tell the truth? Are you the only pilot on the seniority list that is honest, if not then how many are honest?

I am sorry, but your vision of a Cons sheet is ridiculous. If you make your best effort and are able to forge a deal, then it obviously is the best deal you think is possible, otherwise you would still be negotiating. You can sit and wring your hands wondering until the end of time and you will never know, but at some point you have to see the deal and pull the trigger. After that occurs, what point is there and trying to talk people out of the deal? Pilots aren't stupid, they can make their own view of the situation, or do you think you are the only one who can see reality? If you think you achieved the best deal possible, why would you try to get people to reject it. That makes absolutely no sense at all.

You jumped on the bandwagon about the negotiators, your view was that if the negotiating team was changed then all was lost. Well, they are back in the saddle and now two weeks later you are throwing them under the bus. Why would you support them if you can't trust them?

It is bad especially concerning work rules and trip rigs. I am working 35 more days a year under this contract vs the fNWA contract due to work rules alone and that is for the same hours each month under both contracts.

I don't think a "con" paper would nor should come from the MEC or anybody intimately involved in the crafting process. As you said, that makes no sense. But.. the Ryan report was a well written well researched document. How about a somewhat disinterested third party pick this thing apart and write it up. There is nothing wrong with criticism unless you are afraid of something coming out that you didn't think of...

I know of a few that went to FDX and a few that went to SWA. I do recall there being two or three FNWA pilots that are below you on seniority that took the early out as well.