Looks like we could easily protect 47 jobs per the headcount slide from the roadshow. Pull it down and the staffing/productivity metric shifts in our favor. I may be wrong too, it could be 47 each year but that tale isn't labeled well.

 

Doesn't that same slide show the company agreed to things that add jobs as well?

 

Yes it does. Net: -8 for 2017, -8 for 2018, +14 for 2019(increase in VA pay)

Ending the VB and TDY would Net: +39 for 2017, +39 for 2018, +61 for 2019

 

That would be negotiating in bad faith. Give it a chance, then if we don't like what it's doing, we can pull it down.


The ability for our union to back out of something if we don't like it, is a major concession for the company. It's not something that normally happens.

I'd like to see "back out" clauses like that in future contracts. We shouldn't screw it up now by not giving things we negotiated an honest chance.

 

We as line pilots are not negotiating. We have no obligation to try anything. I understand the desire to be amenable and the limited benefit to some select group of commuters or some specific residents of some yet unknown cities, but this unbounded power to affect the entire seniority list with a reduction in trip choice (yes QOL) is more concerning.

Also this is a business decision, just business. I don't think management was saying "we don't think they will do that." They have plans and contingent plans. This is a no brainer capture of jobs.

 

True. But, you are asking the people who are negotiating to act in bad faith. In my opinion, that would be a detriment to us line pilots in the future.

 

Let me get this straight. You think the company's true intention is everything they tell you in negotiations?

 

I pretty sure I didn't say anything close to that. If that's what you got out of it, you misunderstood.

 

I'm very pro-commuter and I say kill it too. This is a horrible idea.

 

This is what happens when we have a handful of well meaning guys negotiating against a shark tank army of lawyers. This has "we didn't think they'd do that" written all over it.

My point is we can't give it a chance, because that chance will be as positive as they can possibly make it in order to get it made permanent. We won't see their full intent during the trial period.

Its also not bad faith to negotiate a pull down clause and then pull it down. That is part of what was negotiated. We can pull it down for any reason at any time we want to. That was the deal. If the company pulled it down (they won't) would we complain that they were acting in bad faith? Of course not.

Even if we wanted to accept the job losses from this as permanent, it would require airtight language so voluminous it would end up being a contract within a contract. We'd have to outthink every flank and every contingency imaginable to make sure the eventual reality wouldn't be worse than the trial period our decision to codify it would be based on. We would need to prevent every single loophole; they would need to find just one.

VB's are a concession. This was apparently such a big deal that all sides knew that the pull down clause had to be included for this not to become a poison pill issue. IMO we can't fairly judge these based on a trial period. They cost jobs, they will be used to their maximum potential at some point beyond the trial period, and they therefore need to be pulled down.