I get that everybody sees what Spirit got for LTD and wants the same. I do too. But the pilot group was polled and it was not a priority in those polls. Asking for huge gains in LTD at this point in negotiations is akin to the company all of a sudden asking for PBS. I don’t think it would go over well. Sorry but those are the apples.

 

Well I for one am not really concerned how it goes over. Many factors have changed while the company has strung us along, all in our favor. I’m sure the company can use some of that 36ish million tax break towards a reasonable LTD.

 

Maybe we should have traded LOA 76 and these new buffers for a real LTD plan. Giving them a generous LOA when they crapped all over LOA 67 is beyond me.

 

It's not the company it has to go over well with, it's the NMB. We weaken our position if we are seen by the NMB to be overreaching. I know, WE don't think it's an overreach, but we have to play by the NMB book to get a favorable result. The NMB's perception is everything.

 

The NMB is fully aware of the changing conditions (like the tax break). It’s not overreaching if the company is gifted a tax break (meant to trickle down btw) and we in turn stick to our original reasonable approach and also expect something of a reasonable LTD.

You can bet that had conditions turned unfavorable (financially) for the company during this delay of their making that they would in turn change their original stance and ask for more concessions.

 

Exactly. This plus one.

 

I think you give the NMB too much credit. They can’t even recognize the company bargaining in bad faith let alone interpret economic conditions. I get the feeling they look at the list of imperatives they were given over a year ago and if it’s not on that list they disregard it. I’ve been wrong before but my faith in the NMB has reached record lows.

 

Being aware and acting on that awareness in a manner that would benefit us don't always go hand in hand.

 

Sure, I totally agree. The NMB may or may not act favorably for us. But settling on inadequate sections based on conjecture guarantees an unfavorable outcome for us.

The point I’m making is that all 3 parties to this negotiation are fully aware of the factors influencing the eventual agreement. All 3, then, can deduce what’s reasonable with regards to each section. As line pilots, we only have one input ultimately, a yes or no vote to the (eventual) TA. Since that TA hasn’t been presented yet, I expect it to reflect current market conditions, respectively. If it does, I’ll be a yes. If not, I’ll be a no and expect the NC to go back to the table. I certainly won’t settle for sub-par sections because the NMB might not receive our rejection well. That’s conjecture, it’s out of our control, and it runs counter to a logical and fair outcome.

When a TA is presented, our union will explain why and how they reached the agreement to each section. If a case can be made for sections that seem below average (past precedents, above average gains in other areas, etc) then I’ll factor that in my vote. If the reason is because the NMB might not like our rejection of a sub-par agreement, well that’s not a reason backed by any substance.

Grossly indadequate sections are hard to offset and are usually disproportionately unfair to some cross section of the pilot group (poor reserve rules to junior pilots, poor LTD for those prone to health issues). There’s just no reason for that in the current environment.

I won’t let conjecture influence my analysis of a TA. Either it’s fair or it isn’t.

 

Very good post!^^^^