gloopy

I could see progress being made towards that end, but what I can't see is the motivation by those in the position to be doing that (from the "inside"). They say follow the money, I say follow the power (the two are strongly correlated of course) but why would "they" want to do that when they would lose money and power?

JoeMerchant

Why is it a "separate issue entirely"? Your MEC made it's bed when it argued that ASA and CMR were separate even though we were all owned by the same company. The chickens are coming home to roost and it looks like some of you are tired of wading thru the chicken $heet...So sorry, so sad....Enjoy the bed you made...

Actions have consequences and we are all seeing them now play out....Too bad ego's didn't want to fly little airplanes...

NuGuy

Hi Bar,

While, in theory, I agree, but as a rule, are there are still some things best kept inside.

If this was a semi-private forum, I'd say "fer shure, oh ya, you betcha", but it's not.

At one point, a bud had a semi-private forum lined up over at another space. We could have blabbered on in private, much like the SWA guys do over at PPRUNE. But in the end, no one was interested, so he bagged the idea.

I also have a rule about getting involved with possessed people...well, it's more of a guideline, than a rule.

Nu

(name that movie)

Bucking Bar

Carl's reprise in Ghostbusters! Good quote.

Bucking Bar

At least sign in from another IP Address.

forgot to bid

Low rent? No offense but what are you guys talking about?

Bar makes a comment and I just added what I was told by the merger folks. Backs up that the arbitrators used the method, more than DALPA wanted them to. Some change in %s were larger than DALPA wanted.

Nu makes a comment, ha ha, backfired! Can't deny that, so I agreed with him. It's all been discussed before and I've mentioned that before and the only reason I've mentioned it before is because I was told it directly.

I've been squelching the merger bemoaning for years now when it surfaces. Period. Of course I can do that because six of one and half a dozen of the other I'm junior. But if some think that arbitrators sat in the room and figured out how to screw them, PMDAL pilot in this case, over and every body was happy with it I think they're a bit wrong. It was all a give and take and the way it was told to me they used that pull and plug 100x when it was supposed to be used a dozen or so. If I remember the numbers right.

I'm reporting, not commenting. That's not low rent. If you want to see me go low rent, go over to that best pay min work thread or the SWA threads. I'm having a field day being low rent.

Bucking Bar

Not so sure the merger committee (on the DAL side) weren't trying to excuse the fact their computer expert invented "pull and plug."

forgot to bid

You could be very right. The way it was told to me over a beer (and I wasn't drinking, I was all ears) was the arbitrators said, and this paraphrasing on their part, "oh that's neat!" Well well, yes, but you see... too late.

It goes back to Nu's point...



But if the pull and plug was the means to an end then you have to anticipate it could have some unintended consequences and maybe find another solution to your problem.

Oh and fwiw, I brought up hockey's complaints that night too. I'll save that for another pertinent time if it ever resurfaces but I've given the answers I got way back when.

newKnow

It's no surprise that DAL South pilots would think that the pull plug method was used too much while DAL North pilots would thin that it wasn't used enough. It's human nature.

But, does anyone know if the retirements -- inclusive of the differences N vs. S -- we have had so far have made up for the pull/plug allowances?

Just wondering.....

Nosmo King

Sorry for the delayed reply, since alfa thinks I am paranoid, then I guess I have to think that alfa is incapable of accepting that ALPA would ever have a flawed strategy. I'll try to be more concise to change him, but no promises.

First, I didn't say the reps will produce lower results out of malice. Every negotiation is different, every survey is different. What I am addressing is my opinion that ALPAs methodology for crafting "fair and reasonable" openers for major negotiations is common practice. See next paragraph as to why I think our MEC produces poor results.

Second I am addressing the opener, the survey and the pros and cons of not publishing the survey (There is one pro that can be really huge) and why I think ALPAs "fair and reasonable" method is totally unsatisfactory and often results in a contract inferior to what could have been negotiated. Nowhere in my previous post did I suggest publishing the results and I am not suggesting it now.
I think previous MECs have been bamboozled into using this negotiating approach.

Third I will give you my OPINION on why our OPENER should ask for the moon.

Definitions:

Opener - The initial document you present to the company with demands for the next PWA.
Everything after the first change to the opener is considered the "current negotiating position"

Background.

In 1991-1993 fNW had just recently merged their seniority lists, started merging operations and started an epic string of arbitrations fighting over the DOH SLI and 20 year fences. In addition, the company underwent an LBO led by Messrs. Checchi and Gary Wilson, saddling the company with debt and stripping it of many (paid for) capital assets.

The NWA MEC recalled the MEC Chairman for negotiating and signing deals with the company and without consulting the MEC.
(Trivia: Said Chairman appeared in the ALPA TV commercial)

Management then embarked on a series of aborted merger/buyout attempts. Midway, Trump Shuttle and Continental and I think one other which escapes me for some reason.

During the 1991-1993 time period, both the negotiating committee and merger committee spent a lot of time working on "openers." for SLI negotiations and later on an "opener" for concessions.

The merger committee chairman, knowing full well that DOH was a majority wish of the NW pilots with Trump and Midway SLI, addressed the MEC and said - "We need to open with a fair and reasonable proposal so we look good in front of a mediator."

Do I think he went off on his own and made up that strategy? No. Do I think it was formulated in consultation with attorneys hired by
NWALPA? Yes. Did it happen more than once? Yes.

Fast forward to 1997 crafting of a Section 6 opener. In consultation with C, W and S, ALPA labor law firm, the words "fair and reasonable" are heard again in front of the MEC.

1998 Negotiation, Mediation (boy did we look good), arbitration, self help and then an arbitrator splits the difference between the two sides to settle the strike (didn't look so good after arbitration).

Present Day

Okay first I have to acknowledge, there is no DALPA opener ... yet. I think this is a good thing for many reasons. My reason is I would like to do some behavior modification on the crowd that preaches "fair and reasonable for a mediator."

What we do have is:

A contract comparison to "peers" using bankruptcy contracts but not JV/Code Share partners contracts. Others call this expectation management and I agree.

A survey that refers to above comparison that some say "paints you into a corner." I agree with that too, I think most ALPA surveys are constructed that way, both written and telephone.

A lot of he said/she said about what reps are saying at meetings about what we should expect. I've never heard it from my reps, don't know if its true or false.

An unpublished survey result really puts DALPA in a no-win situation with its pilots. It opens the door to any and all claiming kool aid drinking, incompetence, collusion, featherbedding, (insert word with negative connotation here). DALPA should not be surprised by this as it also happened with unpublished flight pay loss numbers, BUT

The survey results will NOT be published and I reluctantly agree because there would be IMMENSE damage done by a survey result favorable to managements position. That doesn't mean I like how the survey is written it just means that with current practices it would be a lot of risk.

I think the line pilots should be allowed to survey the negotiators and elected reps on their positions on contract issues, much like ALPA surveys presidential candidates every 4 years.

So for those that believe in the "fair and reasonable" approach, ask yourself these questions:

Do you really believe management would ask for release from mediation so labor could commence "self-help" when we are in a concessionary (cheap labor cost) contract?

When was the last time an arbitrator told an ALPA negotiator "You are asking for too little, why don't you ask for more and then come see me again"?

What do you think your chances are of obtaining the SWA equivalent 737 compensation for DALPA M88 pilots if your opener asks for something lower or equal?

Why shouldn't we ask for the moon, knowing that we can negotiate our way down to whatever is deemed necessary?

How can you look good in front of a mediator without screwing yourself with an arbitrator?

End of Rant Opinion

This is usually when someone mentions the failed APA negotiations. And they are partially correct, but only because they are talking about
the current negotiating position, not the OPENER. An opener is just that, a beginning, you don't usually stay there. If management accepts your opener and signs it, then your opener was too low.

Generally you move from your opener to lower cost positions in negotiations or you trade lower in one area to get an increase in another because management has stated X amount of $$$ total cost and therefore has set the tone of negotiations. I won't get into the fuzzy valuations of some items and not so fuzzy valuations of others (like hourly rate). None of that should prevent us from presenting a HUGE opener.

Managements objective is to get as low a cost as they can, theoretically a 50%+1 vote in MEMRAT. ALPA's position should be throw everything against the wall and see what sticks, because if you don't ask for it, you sure as hell ain't gonna get it. Management has used that tactic on ALPA before. This is where I believe "fair and reasonable" is an epic fail.

It's late, I'm tired and this is incomplete and probably has mistakes but I am posting it anyway.