As some of our reps famously said, the devil is in the details. The reason we have the upper hand with status quo / c2012 is largely due to some fairly airtight contract language that protects us in the form of Profit Sharing, Scope, and The "Me too Clause" (3B4). Consider the following:

1)Any changes to PS render our next contract extremely susceptible to stagnation that will hurt our next negotiating environment in 2018/2019. This has been discussed ad nauseum but remember that the previous PS trade off has been forgotten by both sides and not factored into what we should be negotiating in pay raises.

2) PTIX calculations - Our language is currently airtight. The company will make attempts to skirt it (Venezuela and the JV settlement come to mind) but if we give on the language for PTIX calculations we could ruin our "future proof" protections of our PWA in calculating PTIX and our PS.

3) The Me too Clause - 3B4: This is a huge part of our contract that will eventually trigger one way or another, and any changes to this language, especially with respect to incorporating PS in the clause, would render it useless in the next round of negotiations. We will see this kick in the next time the FAS moan about the disparity in their PS checks versus ours, and the company scrambles to fight off another union drive. This language has to stay as-is

Remember, our current PWA has great future-proof provisions. We can work under this PWA, INDEFINITELY. Any changes to the above render us POWERLESS in the subsequent round of negotiations

 

So you mean no domestic non-pilot employee will get a raise in the future without us getting the same raise?

So you mean there is 20% of the $3B profit increase forecast for 2016 going into the profit sharing pool?

So you mean pay rates will increase as non-cons get raises and additional profits will net 20% in the profit sharing pool not just this year but perpetually if we do nothing?

That's HUGE!

 

Now you see why management was in such a hurry to change all that!

 

SCOPE. BIGGEST THREAT.

SCOPE. Was worth repeating.

SCOPE. Just for good measure

 

Yes sir...it is worth repeating.

Don't give management an inch here.

 

You somewhat glanced over it, but scope is up there too.

 

So you mean scope is unchanged if we do nothing?

So we can focus on production balance on the new JVs without being sold out by our leader?

That's HUGE!

 

While I've been critical of DALPA in the past, I will say that whatever was negotiated in our PWA prior to C2012 has created a formidable amount of leverage for us. The main reason I was a no vote was for these reasons posted above. I think looking over the proposed contract term our current PWA offers more value and better work rules, regardless of what was attempted to be defined as "at-risk". Our entire contract is at-risk.

The best thing about the C2015 proposal was that it finally engaged more of our pilots to push for a voice that accurately represented this group. I'm happy in the direction our MEC, negotiators, and reps are moving in. No regrets here.