Huh? Are you saying pilots are unaware of where our contract fits within the industry, and what items we'd like to see improved? I don't think the wording of the question matters.

In 1996, the #1 item on the NWA pilots survey response was "B" scale, even though half the pilot group had never been on one! It was #1 by a large margin. #2 was pay rates, but it barely beat Scope. Those results were across all demographics.

Disagree. Pay vs Crew Meals? DC Percentage vs Hotel location? Scope vs In vitro fertilization coverage? Profit Sharing vs Out Of Base Green Slip priority? Using "Sophie's Choice" as an analogy doesn't work. That was a life-or-death situation. The survey asked us to rank items in our contract. The results suggest the pilot group felt any "sacrifices" in the deal were offset at an acceptable rate. Do you see it as otherwise?

Some items go to the second tier in Section 6. They just do. The top tier items then become weighted by both their valuation, and how "religious" they're considered by each side. I gave you an example of something other than pay being ranked first. The result of that survey, and subsequent negotiation, led to a strike.

I understand the disappointment some (18%?) feel about having anything in the PWA changed for the worse in any deal, but I don't think there's a better way to determine the collective objectives of our pilot group in Section 6 other than an all-pilot survey.

Can you think of one?

 

I'm not against surveying. We just have to be careful how we do it, and even more careful as to how we interpret it. You list a lot of hypothetical examples of something very minor being weighed less than something larger, etc. Of course. And I've never been against certain "addressing of their concerns". For example WRT sick, the footprint counting against first round GS eligibility is 100% fair and flat out common sense that, while sometimes "costing" one particular pilot a bonus-round trip, is, overall, more fair to all pilots and is the right thing to do.

And I agree that some things go to "tier two" or whatever. In fact, I think trying to rewrite War and Peace every time we open it isn't in our interests in most cases. UAL's recent extension is a great example of that. They were able to leapfrog everyone else by a nice amount, and all they "gave up" (from what I've seen and was told...admittedly I haven't read their entire contract but I doubt anyone here has either) was a small amount of flexibility for FMRS/long haul flying.

So maybe the next one can be about raises and work rule and scope improvements. Any "gives" should be specifically surveyed by the pilots rather than implied simply because we ranked everything. Even if you were able to rank your kids in the order that you loved them doesn't grant a mandate to harm one over the other. Yes that's not the perfect analogy either, but no analogy ever is, otherwise there'd be no need for analogies in the first place.

Going forward, scope should be sacrosanct. No gives in any section, period. Not at any price. The only discussions about scope should be improvements without givebacks in the section and the details of future JV's. That's it. Even if scope isn't "ranked" number one or even two in a survey that forces you to rank absolutely critical sections against one another.

We can't view the inevitable rankings as a mandate to plunder one section to buff another. If give backs are to be considered, we at least need to specifically include that in a survey for it to be valid as implied. Do you want to give up XYZ for a raise in section 3? If it was asked like that, there would be far less evidence supporting most give backs.

 

Maybe a new format for survey of the membership?

A while back, there was a tool (I think on NYTimes website?) with which you could "balance the federal budget" by choosing what budgetary items you would add/subtract/change if you were king for a day.

I could envision such a tool for our use. Give each person a bucket of value (say $300M/yr or whatever the goal of contractual value increase) that DALPA expects the next contract to net the pilot group. Let them allocate that value wherever they choose...

If you want to put it all in rates with no other improvements and no concessions...go for it. If you want to get more value in rates by selling new hires out with a 3-year seat lock...here's a slider for that. Want to leave rates alone and get 7:15/day for vacation...have at it. Want to increase rates, retirement, vacation and training..that'll happen in smaller chunks unless you get some credit out of company-desired concessions X, Y or Z.

It wouldn't be hard to preemptively cost out the hypothetical changes and make this happen. We can debate whether it's actually a zero sum game or not, but in any case a voter could demonstrate his relative interest in advances (or tolerance of concessions) pretty effectively this way. And it would force people to work within a "realistic" framework in which changes to one part of the PWA can affect others quite substantially. Even if the ALPA-proposed total annual value was way off, the relative percentages / weight of effort we would convey in such a survey could be very informative.

 

I like what I'm reading, except the section I highlighted. If the pilots rank Scope out of the top 5 "gets" on the next survey, I think it should be honored. I think the rank-and-file should dictate the priorities. Are we bottom-up, or not?


An example of at Scope trade I'd make:

Would I trade permission for KLM to place the Delta widget on their aircraft in exchange for all augmentation being with captains only?

In half a heartbeat.

 

I like it!

I contend that's actually a survey, but I recognize the differences. I wouldn't mind seeing something like that added to the tools used prior to the opener:

1. Contract comparison, with nominal values assigned for various items.
2. Traditional survey (like 2015).
3. Your model, to include what the MEC believes the company will be shooting for in the next deal.

Good suggestion! Please pass it on to your reps!

 

That is something I'm very concerned about. It just seems like the company is exploring doing something like that for reasons far beyond superficial marketing. Is it really just about logo continuity or could it become something way more sinister down the road? Either way I don't like it. If they come hard to the paint with a bribe for it, that makes it even more suspicious.

 

Clearly the Co. would like to put the "Wheaties" logo on every box of cereal in Europe and South America.

 

The question is now that NAI was approved, is scope even remotely going to matter as much as it did 24 hrs ago...NAI is pretty much an indirect loss of scope whether we want to or not. Good thing the ta passed before NAI was approved...

 

You are so easy.

I'm happy. You aren't. Enjoy your misery.

 

NAI is a general negative pressure on international yields going forward. It has nothing to do with our scope.