The same reasons we gave it up in Contract 2012.

 

RA told everyone at the investor day conference that he would have the pilot contract singed by the end of the year so there would be no problems with labor.

 

Sounds good to me! Pay up.

 

Labor risk can be OFF the table.... As long as RA puts the checkbook ON the table!

It's their choice!

 

You gave up finite profit sharing for a finite pay raise on a 1:1 or better basis while you kept the infinite portion of the profit sharing. That means in good years you make more and in bad years you make more. I don't see how that was a bad deal. I see no reason to give up any of the profit sharing this time around. It's an apples and oranges comparison.

The only place I've seen that the company wants profit sharing in exchange for a quick contract - which doesn't even make sense, BTW - is on this board. I've seen the company repeatedly tout the merits of profit sharing and just recently say they want a quick contract.

We have no way of knowing how seriously the company is about valuing labor peace until negotiations start. If the company's opener drops profit sharing and isn't a significant contractual improvement (overall, they will have items the want for efficiency purposes) it will be clear they don't want an early contract and they don't value labor peace. Until that point we can only speculate.

 

Exactly!
...

 

Why would we give up something of value for something of little consequence? Is the company going to trick us into a new contract?

Where is the evidence that the company even wants to drop profit sharing? The only place I've seen it is here, which I enjoy as much as anyone, but anonymous message board posters aren't the best sources for real information. They are, however, great sources for rampant speculation presented as fact.

 

Let's use a little strategic thought and pragmatic critical thinking. You know, "chess" instead of "checkers."

OF COURSE the company wants profit sharing. At least the lions' share. RA wants to be "investment grade." Wall Street is going bat**** about our PS. RA has hit the glass ceiling until he can ditch our PS.

I suppose he might leave a few crumbs just so he can poke Ameican in the eye about their lack of profit sharing. But there will be no early contract without gutting PS and significantly funding our own improvements.

Even the dalpa hard-liners have gone nordo on the notion that PS is untouchable.

You are saying "king me." RA is saying "checkmate ."

 

Just a quick comment about "openers" being made public.

Doing that is a recent phenomenon that has been brought about by popular demand. The whole exercise is more about public relations than about negotiations.

There's the actual negotiations and then there's the public "openers".
The two things are nearly unrelated these days.

If either side decides to publish something you can be sure it will be a meaningless document. If you're expecting to see detailed negotiating positions you are going to be deeply disappointed.

ie => DALPA will open for "substantial improvements to pay and benefits".

They're not going to publish numbers.

 

Publishing and continually sharing management's positions would give us huge leverage and make unity soar. sadly DALPA is too afraid of RA to do this.