TenYearsGone

The problem is that DALPA does not "sell" to management what we lost. They enter the room content and ready to negotiate minimal raises with gives on a bankruptcy era contract.

DALPA needs to start the negotiation process by hammering to Management the things we have lost to better this company ( A plethora of Qol, Pay, Retirement issues). Once DALPA is confident that we are worth more and we deserve to get paid back for our investments, then the company will take them serious and a true negotiating environment is born.

Currently, DALPA is being played by a shrewd man and company. DALPA and some followers are comfortable, they do not want to disrupt their ebb and flow. This is one reason you hear, "In negotiations, we have to give a little to get a little". I agree, give a little once we are at restoration plus inflation but right at this moment RA is ecstatic that his Union accepted the reset in wages and work rules. He will continue to build his nest to his heart's desire, then he will leave. Ever so often he will throw out a nice complementary "word" about his Union leader and employee group. Just enough so the Koolaid still flows.

Insanity. How do people fall for this? Until we realize our true worth and stop worrying about others, we will pass any TA given to us by DALPA. Guaranteed.

TEN

Purple Drank

How is that remotely relevant?

I'm more concerned about the discount you're begging to give RA.

TenYearsGone

Purple, all day I hear "I got a great car deal using USAA or true car!"**Once this mentality stops, then a GREAT contract will be earned.

Our pilots are honest and believe anything our elected leaders say. Sometimes you have to think out side of the box to make any gains.

**USAA, true car and the Car dealers make you think you got a great deal. A few more hours of negotiation will yield much better results, no matter what the dealer says.

TEN

NERD

Special MEC meeting on the 19th. "Hey guys, how do we sell givebacks after this stock buyback announcement?"

gloopy

So every CBA must have concessions or else they will be iced for all eternity?

If what you meant to say was compromise then you might have a point. We can compromise from 100% scope at all levels to a point that reduces large RJ's as contracts expire while not allowing one more seat or weight increase at DCI. We can compromise from 6 weeks of touch drop vacation all the way down to 5 weeks of 5 hours a day. We can compromise from every city we serve being a hub to protect against future AS code share abuse to just adding SEA and LAX to the current list of hubs. We can compromise from C2K pay plus full inflation and restoration of 60% FAE retirement to significant raises while retaining profit sharing and upping our defined contribution. We can compromise from 100% JV balance in our favor all the way down to half. A 50% compromise. Half, or course, now being defined as 51.5% for the rest of the decade is 100% fair and balanced too, since they had the "half" scales in their favor for many years. 24 hour long call can be compromised down to 14.

But saying there has to be sections that lose in order to gain to justify concessions during the most positive and profitable period argueably in industry history, and all for 9/6/4/4 with givebacks all around, well, lol. Yeah.

gloopy

Great point that's often overlooked. But even still, I'd much rather wind the watch and sit on what we have for years if necessary than to sell concessions all through the contract for 9/6/4/4 with reduced/monetized PS, more large RJ's, more blank ckecks for AS in SEA, longer training freezes and work rule "productivity" hits that require fewer pilots. No thanks, I'd rather stick with current book for years than fall for that.

sailingfun

Every negotiation involves some compromise. What I look for is the end product. It should heavily favor us in this environment. The company will have some legitimate needs it wants to address. A contract has to evolve with changes in both regulations and the marketplace.
I am sure you have taken the time to read some of the available information on how the NMB operates and their definitions of reasonableness.
Do you honestly think that if as some suggest we walked into negotiations and stated we will not accept or discuss any concessions in any section of the contract the NMB would embrace that and push us through the process to release?

gzsg

The Shadow MEC assumes any TA will pass and they may be right.

They and our execs need to be careful what they wish for. ****ing off half the pilots group with another jam down threat job is filled with risk.

The challenges ahead of us are unprecedented. 9 fleets, 8 bases, massive retirements and at least 3 new fleets. 787, A 350 and the 100 seat jet.

Not to mention the disintegrating DCI disaster.

There is a massive group within that has taken all the #### they are going to take.

JMHO

sailingfun

N

I have also heard the new 100 seat jet rumor. I heard it before the 96 and 01 contracts also to include management power points on the jets they were looking at. They never showed up. I hope the new junior guys do not include the rumor in how they vote unless it is written into the contract.

gloopy

In this environment I don't care about getting released if doing so means eating concessions. I would rather sit on current book for years versus paying for a raise and giving up scope and work rule "productivity" changes. I'm all in favor of packaging our position to sound reasonable. My previous post was somewhat exagerated but not much. Sure we should compromise. But 5B in ridiculous money flushed down the drain precicely because they have run out of things to do with it means no concessions, period. The NMB does not demand every TA have concessions in order to get released. They just want "reasonableness" which can be achieved (and then some) by aiming very, very, very high and settling for very, very high.