Race to the bottom of the market
09-13-2016 | 07:31 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Snake
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Race to the bottom of the market
We’re not “parked,” we’re not even “formally recessed,” we just have a lot of open dates on our calendar because the NMB has decided to reallocate their limited resources to cases that actually have a scant hope of reaching an agreement. The NMB controls the clock; the clock is stopped, but we aren’t parked? Really?
Our union has decided to negotiate in public, posting a thumbnail sketch of ALPA and Delta’s table positions on a very narrow spectrum. On the face of it, the two sides look close to a deal, and that is puzzling, because negotiating in public only really works as a ploy when the sides are far apart, and the whole point of the tactic is to paint the other side as unreasonable. A couple points’ difference isn’t going to convince an objective third party (like a mediator, an investor, a Congressman, or a federal judge) of anything.
Negotiating in public makes it difficult – if not impossible - for either side to move without appearing weak or conciliatory. The last Negotiator’s Notepad says we can still meet with the company in the meantime, but what would induce management to view that favorably, since we have let them off the hook with our own false assumptions and flawed direction?
Both sides need a reason to sign a tentative agreement, or one side will find a better alternative in mediation. Again, see the clock? It’s stopped.
On our side of the fence, I see a lot of self-serving fantasies that are enabled in large part by a certain dozen representatives of the Delta MEC. These are the guys who decided that it would be a great idea to ignore the polling data, ignore subject matter experts, and the professional negotiators that we keep on retainer. These are the guys who got us parked last Friday. They have no plan that will ensure the resumption of negotiations, mediated or otherwise.
Our union leadership thinks that we can get the ball across the plane with more street theater, sideshows, and form letters to the chief pilots? None of those things have the slightest impact on leverage or the market for our services.
We have NO PLAN. All we have are some Rush Week fraternity gimmicks to **** off Dean Wormer, a communications plan that tries to moralize when it should be giving a business case, and a representative body that has suspended the normally accepted rules of civil discourse in favor of populist flapdoodle.
Management knows that they have to hew close to the line with the NMB, so this is just a math problem after costing. I think that they refuse to budge from their current position because they have no trust in Malone’s ability to get any deal past the cabal on the MEC. If the company doesn’t have a shred of confidence in the people we send to the table, then they have no reason to deal honestly, let alone approach the limits of their direction.
“I’ll have to ask my boss” always means, “you really should be talking to my boss, because I don’t have the chops to close.”
Our union has decided to negotiate in public, posting a thumbnail sketch of ALPA and Delta’s table positions on a very narrow spectrum. On the face of it, the two sides look close to a deal, and that is puzzling, because negotiating in public only really works as a ploy when the sides are far apart, and the whole point of the tactic is to paint the other side as unreasonable. A couple points’ difference isn’t going to convince an objective third party (like a mediator, an investor, a Congressman, or a federal judge) of anything.
Negotiating in public makes it difficult – if not impossible - for either side to move without appearing weak or conciliatory. The last Negotiator’s Notepad says we can still meet with the company in the meantime, but what would induce management to view that favorably, since we have let them off the hook with our own false assumptions and flawed direction?
Both sides need a reason to sign a tentative agreement, or one side will find a better alternative in mediation. Again, see the clock? It’s stopped.
On our side of the fence, I see a lot of self-serving fantasies that are enabled in large part by a certain dozen representatives of the Delta MEC. These are the guys who decided that it would be a great idea to ignore the polling data, ignore subject matter experts, and the professional negotiators that we keep on retainer. These are the guys who got us parked last Friday. They have no plan that will ensure the resumption of negotiations, mediated or otherwise.
Our union leadership thinks that we can get the ball across the plane with more street theater, sideshows, and form letters to the chief pilots? None of those things have the slightest impact on leverage or the market for our services.
We have NO PLAN. All we have are some Rush Week fraternity gimmicks to **** off Dean Wormer, a communications plan that tries to moralize when it should be giving a business case, and a representative body that has suspended the normally accepted rules of civil discourse in favor of populist flapdoodle.
Management knows that they have to hew close to the line with the NMB, so this is just a math problem after costing. I think that they refuse to budge from their current position because they have no trust in Malone’s ability to get any deal past the cabal on the MEC. If the company doesn’t have a shred of confidence in the people we send to the table, then they have no reason to deal honestly, let alone approach the limits of their direction.
“I’ll have to ask my boss” always means, “you really should be talking to my boss, because I don’t have the chops to close.”
09-13-2016 | 08:06 AM
#4
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 852
Likes: 1
We’re not “parked,” we’re not even “formally recessed,” we just have a lot of open dates on our calendar because the NMB has decided to reallocate their limited resources to cases that actually have a scant hope of reaching an agreement. The NMB controls the clock; the clock is stopped, but we aren’t parked? Really?
Our union has decided to negotiate in public, posting a thumbnail sketch of ALPA and Delta’s table positions on a very narrow spectrum. On the face of it, the two sides look close to a deal, and that is puzzling, because negotiating in public only really works as a ploy when the sides are far apart, and the whole point of the tactic is to paint the other side as unreasonable. A couple points’ difference isn’t going to convince an objective third party (like a mediator, an investor, a Congressman, or a federal judge) of anything.
Negotiating in public makes it difficult – if not impossible - for either side to move without appearing weak or conciliatory. The last Negotiator’s Notepad says we can still meet with the company in the meantime, but what would induce management to view that favorably, since we have let them off the hook with our own false assumptions and flawed direction?
Both sides need a reason to sign a tentative agreement, or one side will find a better alternative in mediation. Again, see the clock? It’s stopped.
On our side of the fence, I see a lot of self-serving fantasies that are enabled in large part by a certain dozen representatives of the Delta MEC. These are the guys who decided that it would be a great idea to ignore the polling data, ignore subject matter experts, and the professional negotiators that we keep on retainer. These are the guys who got us parked last Friday. They have no plan that will ensure the resumption of negotiations, mediated or otherwise.
Our union leadership thinks that we can get the ball across the plane with more street theater, sideshows, and form letters to the chief pilots? None of those things have the slightest impact on leverage or the market for our services.
We have NO PLAN. All we have are some Rush Week fraternity gimmicks to **** off Dean Wormer, a communications plan that tries to moralize when it should be giving a business case, and a representative body that has suspended the normally accepted rules of civil discourse in favor of populist flapdoodle.
Management knows that they have to hew close to the line with the NMB, so this is just a math problem after costing. I think that they refuse to budge from their current position because they have no trust in Malone’s ability to get any deal past the cabal on the MEC. If the company doesn’t have a shred of confidence in the people we send to the table, then they have no reason to deal honestly, let alone approach the limits of their direction.
“I’ll have to ask my boss” always means, “you really should be talking to my boss, because I don’t have the chops to close.”
Our union has decided to negotiate in public, posting a thumbnail sketch of ALPA and Delta’s table positions on a very narrow spectrum. On the face of it, the two sides look close to a deal, and that is puzzling, because negotiating in public only really works as a ploy when the sides are far apart, and the whole point of the tactic is to paint the other side as unreasonable. A couple points’ difference isn’t going to convince an objective third party (like a mediator, an investor, a Congressman, or a federal judge) of anything.
Negotiating in public makes it difficult – if not impossible - for either side to move without appearing weak or conciliatory. The last Negotiator’s Notepad says we can still meet with the company in the meantime, but what would induce management to view that favorably, since we have let them off the hook with our own false assumptions and flawed direction?
Both sides need a reason to sign a tentative agreement, or one side will find a better alternative in mediation. Again, see the clock? It’s stopped.
On our side of the fence, I see a lot of self-serving fantasies that are enabled in large part by a certain dozen representatives of the Delta MEC. These are the guys who decided that it would be a great idea to ignore the polling data, ignore subject matter experts, and the professional negotiators that we keep on retainer. These are the guys who got us parked last Friday. They have no plan that will ensure the resumption of negotiations, mediated or otherwise.
Our union leadership thinks that we can get the ball across the plane with more street theater, sideshows, and form letters to the chief pilots? None of those things have the slightest impact on leverage or the market for our services.
We have NO PLAN. All we have are some Rush Week fraternity gimmicks to **** off Dean Wormer, a communications plan that tries to moralize when it should be giving a business case, and a representative body that has suspended the normally accepted rules of civil discourse in favor of populist flapdoodle.
Management knows that they have to hew close to the line with the NMB, so this is just a math problem after costing. I think that they refuse to budge from their current position because they have no trust in Malone’s ability to get any deal past the cabal on the MEC. If the company doesn’t have a shred of confidence in the people we send to the table, then they have no reason to deal honestly, let alone approach the limits of their direction.
“I’ll have to ask my boss” always means, “you really should be talking to my boss, because I don’t have the chops to close.”
09-13-2016 | 08:09 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
You can blame a "certain dozen MEC reps" if you like, but the truth of the matter is the blame for the quandary we're in lies DIRECTLY at the feet of last year's MEC which approved a HORRIBLE TA, and set the bar so low it is difficult to recover from, and of course management also shares the blame for not taking negotiations seriously. If you want to b!tch about how we got here, those two groups should be where you focus your frustrations... Just sayin😉
09-13-2016 | 08:14 AM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
You can blame a "certain dozen MEC reps" if you like, but the truth of the matter is the blame for the quandary we're in lies DIRECTLY at the feet of last year's MEC which approved a HORRIBLE TA, and set the bar so low it is difficult to recover from, and of course management also shares the blame for not taking negotiations seriously. If you want to b!tch about how we got here, those two groups should be where you focus your frustrations... Just sayin��
09-13-2016 | 08:23 AM
#8
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 852
Likes: 1
I would say they are doing their best to not repeat the MEC's past mistakes. And the company's negotiators are still trying to push the idea that Delta just can't survive without certain "must have" concessions from our PWA...
09-13-2016 | 08:43 AM
#10
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
Just going to leave this here.
Note that rube likes making threads every few weeks on how we are parked. There was a fairy tale about someone who cried wolf....
Respectfully, one of us is wrong, but it's much less expensive if I am wrong.
I am voting in favor of this TA. Most of my heartburn was wrapped around sick and scheduling changes.
The give on sick leave is that verification is different; different threshold, different metric with hours turning to work days, and no early verification.
Oh, and we can’t call in sick and greenslip our way to fame and fortune anymore.
Here are the gets:
No change to sick leave benefits if you are (actually) sick. Zero.
FAA Leave while a pilot waits to get his medical back from Oklahoma City. 60 days of full pay, none of which counts against his thresholds or benefits.
Elimination of income offsets for those pilots on disability over 36 months.
A disability account that could extend the time a pilot will be on 100% pay when he transitions from temporary to long-term disability.
Pilots enduring psychiatric conditions have significantly improved benefits. I’m amazed that this hasn’t caught on here at APC.
Simple question guys. Would you pass over all those improved benefits, which could literally save the lives of thousands of pilots, over a change to verification with improved privacy safeguards, and which is entirely HIPPA compliant?
Let’s talk about the scheduling changes:
The give is about two percent of trips withheld from pre-month bidding. I am simply never going to be senior enough for this to matter to me anyway, but I get it that this is a cottage industry for some very senior first officers, who are nonetheless irate over the abrogation of seniority and quality of life.
Go read it – it’s a jumble of conditional terms that anyone could drive a truck through; the top quarter still get to play the “on-the-payroll-but-off-the-clock” game, and it only applies when the OE involves a pilot flying out of his own base. I’m betting it’s closer to the top 40 percent who see no change to this issue.
This is from the latest NNP:
"As an example, if the company withheld 75 percent of the 3 percent of rotations in the MD88B category in June 2015 then that would effect a maximum of 43 rotations out of 1825 total rotations."
FRMS changes for B777 pilots, to allow short call on the first day of an on-call block, and another FRMS allowing the minimum break-in-duty following cancellation to be 10 hours, down from 13 hours.
The other quid is one hour added to the TLV as part of a one-year test LOA.
What do we get?
They fixed reroute. I think it’s finally fair to both sides. I am now more likely to get premium pay if I get rerouted, and there is an economic disincentive for the company to reroute me.
End-of-month carryover trips rewritten I get premium pay when they fail to honor my bid award.
In exchange for the TLV increase, the RCC gets an edit on the schedule. RCC’s suggested improvements will reflect what pilots actually want, like more one-, two-, and three-day trips. And trips can be worth more credit time, up to 15%. EVERYONE will get better trips, or ALPA takes back the hour of TLV.
Changes to the reserves required formula makes it easier for me to drop lousy trips and pick up better ones.
IVDs offer me the option of using vacation days instead of APDs (except I still get paid), and I have a better chance to use vacation days when my kids aren’t in school, and I’m a lot less sore about that February vacation award.
You knew it was coming, but here’s the question: do you really want to pass up the fix to reroute, and better quality of life options, and better control of your schedule over two percent of trips? Pass up improvements that benefit EVERY pilot, just to hang on to an artificial bonus that only goes to a select few?
Get over it. The OE trip change is industry standard; UAL withholds 75% of OE trips, and AAL withholds 100%. You’re not going to win this one at the NMB.
Actually, there are a lot of things we wouldn’t win at the NMB. The only reason to decline a negotiated deal is the proven existence of a better deal outside of negotiations.
One side of this “alternate path” debate is wrong. Which set of assumptions is more expensive when it proves to be incorrect?
I’m voting in favor of the TA because I know that despite a few blemishes, no deal is perfect, and this proposal not only delivers a lot of value to the pilots; but it also gives the company an unassailable position in mediation.
Suppose this gets voted down. It is my contention that after the cheering stopped, we would observe a gut check on the other side of the street. It would be January before the company met with us again. And I quote:
“…if you vote no, the money for the E190s and the 737s will go to refurbish our RJ-50s. This was not a threat; many of the regional agreements are expiring later this year, and we will feed one way or another. This is part of the impetus to get a deal done early. We currently have a contract; it expires next year. If it is a NO, we will re-open negotiations then...”
Those are the man’s words in public. We would apply jointly to the NMB, just like it says in Section 28, on March 31, 2016.
Two years later, we show up at the NMB and the first thing Puchala sees is this TA, which offers industry leading pay, profit sharing, and work rules; she’s going to look over her glasses at us, and wonder aloud why we didn’t heed her warnings about “slow walks through fantasyland,” and “leaving our inner child at the door.”
What if I’m wrong? Anyone can see that one side of this debate is incapable of self-examination.
If I’m wrong but it passes, I’m still better off than most of my peers in this business. Quarter-million a year sounds pretty good to me. So far it seems that only one side of this debate is capable of introspection or doubt. If I am mistaken about my assessment of how this would play at the NMB, and the deal passes, we are still the highest paid pilots in the world, with work rules and profit sharing that are better than our peers. Some downside.
What if the other side is wrong? How expensive is that? I see a lot of people here and on Facebook saying that the CEO is frightened of pilots (they don’t offer any evidence to support the claim).
We would need a 25.1% raise on January 1, 2017, or 53.8% in 2018 just to match what is on the table today. That’s gonna take a lot more than an inflatable rat.
If I’m wrong, it costs nothing. If they are wrong, the error costs no less than $1,398,800,000 in lost wages.
I am voting in favor of this TA. Most of my heartburn was wrapped around sick and scheduling changes.
The give on sick leave is that verification is different; different threshold, different metric with hours turning to work days, and no early verification.
Oh, and we can’t call in sick and greenslip our way to fame and fortune anymore.
Here are the gets:
No change to sick leave benefits if you are (actually) sick. Zero.
FAA Leave while a pilot waits to get his medical back from Oklahoma City. 60 days of full pay, none of which counts against his thresholds or benefits.
Elimination of income offsets for those pilots on disability over 36 months.
A disability account that could extend the time a pilot will be on 100% pay when he transitions from temporary to long-term disability.
Pilots enduring psychiatric conditions have significantly improved benefits. I’m amazed that this hasn’t caught on here at APC.
Simple question guys. Would you pass over all those improved benefits, which could literally save the lives of thousands of pilots, over a change to verification with improved privacy safeguards, and which is entirely HIPPA compliant?
Let’s talk about the scheduling changes:
The give is about two percent of trips withheld from pre-month bidding. I am simply never going to be senior enough for this to matter to me anyway, but I get it that this is a cottage industry for some very senior first officers, who are nonetheless irate over the abrogation of seniority and quality of life.
Go read it – it’s a jumble of conditional terms that anyone could drive a truck through; the top quarter still get to play the “on-the-payroll-but-off-the-clock” game, and it only applies when the OE involves a pilot flying out of his own base. I’m betting it’s closer to the top 40 percent who see no change to this issue.
This is from the latest NNP:
"As an example, if the company withheld 75 percent of the 3 percent of rotations in the MD88B category in June 2015 then that would effect a maximum of 43 rotations out of 1825 total rotations."
FRMS changes for B777 pilots, to allow short call on the first day of an on-call block, and another FRMS allowing the minimum break-in-duty following cancellation to be 10 hours, down from 13 hours.
The other quid is one hour added to the TLV as part of a one-year test LOA.
What do we get?
They fixed reroute. I think it’s finally fair to both sides. I am now more likely to get premium pay if I get rerouted, and there is an economic disincentive for the company to reroute me.
End-of-month carryover trips rewritten I get premium pay when they fail to honor my bid award.
In exchange for the TLV increase, the RCC gets an edit on the schedule. RCC’s suggested improvements will reflect what pilots actually want, like more one-, two-, and three-day trips. And trips can be worth more credit time, up to 15%. EVERYONE will get better trips, or ALPA takes back the hour of TLV.
Changes to the reserves required formula makes it easier for me to drop lousy trips and pick up better ones.
IVDs offer me the option of using vacation days instead of APDs (except I still get paid), and I have a better chance to use vacation days when my kids aren’t in school, and I’m a lot less sore about that February vacation award.
You knew it was coming, but here’s the question: do you really want to pass up the fix to reroute, and better quality of life options, and better control of your schedule over two percent of trips? Pass up improvements that benefit EVERY pilot, just to hang on to an artificial bonus that only goes to a select few?
Get over it. The OE trip change is industry standard; UAL withholds 75% of OE trips, and AAL withholds 100%. You’re not going to win this one at the NMB.
Actually, there are a lot of things we wouldn’t win at the NMB. The only reason to decline a negotiated deal is the proven existence of a better deal outside of negotiations.
One side of this “alternate path” debate is wrong. Which set of assumptions is more expensive when it proves to be incorrect?
I’m voting in favor of the TA because I know that despite a few blemishes, no deal is perfect, and this proposal not only delivers a lot of value to the pilots; but it also gives the company an unassailable position in mediation.
Suppose this gets voted down. It is my contention that after the cheering stopped, we would observe a gut check on the other side of the street. It would be January before the company met with us again. And I quote:
“…if you vote no, the money for the E190s and the 737s will go to refurbish our RJ-50s. This was not a threat; many of the regional agreements are expiring later this year, and we will feed one way or another. This is part of the impetus to get a deal done early. We currently have a contract; it expires next year. If it is a NO, we will re-open negotiations then...”
Those are the man’s words in public. We would apply jointly to the NMB, just like it says in Section 28, on March 31, 2016.
Two years later, we show up at the NMB and the first thing Puchala sees is this TA, which offers industry leading pay, profit sharing, and work rules; she’s going to look over her glasses at us, and wonder aloud why we didn’t heed her warnings about “slow walks through fantasyland,” and “leaving our inner child at the door.”
What if I’m wrong? Anyone can see that one side of this debate is incapable of self-examination.
If I’m wrong but it passes, I’m still better off than most of my peers in this business. Quarter-million a year sounds pretty good to me. So far it seems that only one side of this debate is capable of introspection or doubt. If I am mistaken about my assessment of how this would play at the NMB, and the deal passes, we are still the highest paid pilots in the world, with work rules and profit sharing that are better than our peers. Some downside.
What if the other side is wrong? How expensive is that? I see a lot of people here and on Facebook saying that the CEO is frightened of pilots (they don’t offer any evidence to support the claim).
We would need a 25.1% raise on January 1, 2017, or 53.8% in 2018 just to match what is on the table today. That’s gonna take a lot more than an inflatable rat.
If I’m wrong, it costs nothing. If they are wrong, the error costs no less than $1,398,800,000 in lost wages.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
