As most have said I don’t think we could ask for enough because these greedy totally unreasonable slime balls are going to undercut us by so much, that is if they even pretend to continue to negotiate (I’m not sure they will even bother to pretend since the NMB doesn’t seem to care). But am I reading the proposal right with a 3% increase each year a 12 year capt will be making about 298 by year 4?

 

The way I understand the structure of our proposal is that the company can increase first year pay to within a few % of second year pay at thier expense (I.e. it wouldn’t increase the overall cost of our ask). Once they do that it can’t be lowered it can only increase never to exceed a few % below year 2. It’s pretty solid language in my opinion.

 

No that was one of the companies old proposals I don’t think it is still on the table.

 

Regardless, it shows their desire. This is the the hole they dug let them climb out by themselves

 

Yes. That’s what I was told by one of the negotiating committee members two days ago (I’m pretty sure he wasn’t making it up). We were having a conversation about our new ask. Now weather or not it makes it into a TA for us to vote on is another story.

 

(2016)

ALPA: We humbly ask for $245/hr.
F9: No.

(After 2 years of fruitless negotiations)

ALPA: We demand $266/hr!
F9: ????

Use your imagination and fill in the appropriate response. Will it make It into a TA for us? HAHAHAHAHAAAA! Pass that kool aid!

*disclaimer* I agree the ask needed to be different but I think we all agree after the failed strategy that it should have been that high 2 years ago

 

The strategy is correct, though.

As time passes and rates go up elsewhere, so should our ask.

I’ve posted several times here in the past about our intial ask was too low. Others have well. When ALPA was asked why and to increase, they balked (something about timing or strategy). Now, it seems they have seen the light.

I still think it’s too low. 12 yr CAs will be getting $300 / hr soon at other places. Our ask should START there. Along with profit sharing and changes to LTD, reserve rules, per diem, red eye override, health care share, open time pick up procedures, vacation security (add that now that they’ve shown they will canx at their leisure), paid medical exams and a host of other things too long to list.

If the NMB isn’t going to allow us to negotiate, then why are we limiting our ask? We could literally ask for anything (bounce houses for our kids, new cars every 3 years, a suite at Broncos games...) and it wouldn’t matter. If the company tries to use anything about our ask as being unreasonable and therefore not worthy of consideration, then our response should be “well, what IS worthy of consideration?” And hence, the negotionas would continue...

 

By the way my original screen name was fucoolaiddrinkers. I made it up several years ago to try and talk fellow f9 pilots out of voting yes to LOA 67. Not sure why the U and S went away but it’s been years and I’m to lazy to try and change it back.

 

While I’m not happy about TAed per diem and Ltd that’s the only TAed language I’m not happy with. Having said that I’m also not happy about the lack of redeye and international override language but to completely go off the reservation with our ask at this point in time will not help. The NMB hasn’t released us, YET. They haven’t stated were not getting released. That is still the goal today. I’m sure I’ll get hammered for this view but that’s where I’m at. Today.

 

Not sure what you mean here? The strategy hadn’t failed two years ago. Plus if it had been $266 two years ago it would have been a different strategy. If your trying to say that our strategy 2 years ago should have started differently I’ll buy that but keep in mind the NMB was more labor friendly at that time and was expected to stay that way.