I live in base and do 1-2 day trips.

wasting negotiating capital on reserve rules and commuting is stupid.

but I digest.

as a commuter I would never negotiate for any commuter rules. Of course alpa gave up the commuter clause we had for long call.
however, for a company with multiple bases and a quickly reducing relative seniority you should want better reserve rules. With the new rules at the big 4 res has become senior, which helps junior people get more desirable 1-2 day trips. But the simple fact that half the pilot group here is facing now the prospect of being on reserve or could be as more bases open is an absolute reason we all should care about res rules.

ivr said repeatedly on this website we should improve reserve and commuting. I should’ve emphasize my sarcasm.

My larger point is that ‘negotiating capital’ has become the new bogeyman—something certain individuals are now invoking to manipulate or intimidate others. The term’s being tossed around to pressure people into choosing one option over another

Let me tell you what negotiating capital is not.
it’s not a bank account.
it’s not a Charles Schwab brokerage account.
it’s not a line on a retained earnings statement.

There’s no such things as we have “1000 basis points” of negotiating capital. Profit sharing will be using 750 basis points. That leaves us with 250 points to negotiate rates/softpay/qol.

it doesn’t work that way. It’s not tangible like that. This is nonsense and people believe it’s just like that.

you won’t have an idea of what your negotiating capital is until you see your first TA. At that point you vote yes or no.

Yes- we have maxed out our negotiating capital.
No- we have not exceeded our negotiating capital.

Yes. there’s a financial cost to all contracts.

Yes. The union has stated “what are you willing to give up?”

Lastly, How long are you willing to wait?

It actually works EXACTLY that way, or the opposite of what you are implying. There is a number, we don't know what that number is, but there is a number. That number is going to be divided up and we get to decide how it is going to be divided with limitations. Using your theory, we could be offered the highest narrow body rates with a me too clause and there would still be beans left in the jar for profit sharing even though we are currently roughly 30-40% existing narrow body rates. You are not going to get everything you want, hence the "negotiating capital" premise. You can spend your beans in one place, or four, but there are only so many beans regardless of how bad we want that reality to not exist.

it exists. But it doesn’t exist in this nonsensical way.

What is the upper limit the company will pay for a labor contract? Once you figure that out, you’ve found your negotiating capital. But they’ll never reveal the absolute number. That figure was different two years ago, it’s different today, and it’ll keep changing two, three, or four years from now.

until then it’s a boogie man. “Oh don’t do this because we might miss out on that”.

yeah? How do you positively know that?

you won’t have the slightest idea until you see the first TA.

how you allocate negotiating capital = beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Thats why I think we should “waste” capital on PS. It costs the company absolutely nothing unless they make money. It’s a positive feedback loop. It also helps to prevent the game of “macroeconomic challenges” during negotiations that just disappear after a contract ratification.


Unrelated, how are we so bad every summer? We have 4% more pilots, 6% more active aircraft, yet 13% less block hours compared to last year and we still can’t get it together.

Zooropa is simply reiterating the common sense notion that in a negotiation, everything is worth something and so if you want something you have to negotiate away something in exchange.

First, because that’s what negotiation is. Negotiating.

Second, because there’s a finite aggregate benefit that the company will agree to. Because there’s a finite aggregate benefit that the company CAN agree to. That pilots of an airline selling extremely discounted tickets need to be reminded of this will never cease to amaze.

LinaPeru’s point about having to vote down TAs in order to identify what the company is willing to give is beside the point. We know there’s a maximum, and there’s questionable value in delaying a contract for years only to potentially eke out some marginal gain somewhere while we’d have been better off taking the win years earlier.

It’s not about beating the company. It’s about us winning. And that requires a holistic approach that considers not only “what does the final contract look like,” but how much did we lose while we were getting there and how much carnage we had to endure to get it.

Go ahead and cue the “DERP is that you Barry?!?” responses from the usual crew with nothing better to say.

you positive about that Bobby? Debatable don’t you think? Depends on the environment.

how much did the legacies concede the last round? Some concessions occurred. Was it a ton? Compared to their gains? AA had some changes to their reserve. Overall, it was a win.

Are we in a concessionary environment?

Where are we in the contract negotiation cycle?

Do we have much to concede according to industry standards? I guess that depends who you think our peer group is. Delta or Avelo? If our peer group is the regionals we have plenty to concede. If our peer group is Delta we have more to gain than lose.

But we know what a turd you are, bob. If it pleases Barry you’ll do it.

just in case anyone forgot.

a 2 year MESA wonder telling “senior pilots” what it’s all about.

We’re shooting for the same % increase in total compensation as others just achieved. That % doesn’t really change much over time (proposal rates go up with time). It’s a known number by both sides. Retro is designed to capture delays. It’s not really a guessing game. You should have a pretty good idea of what a ratifiable TA should look like right now. We’re just arguing with ourselves how to divide that number.

compound interest says if you’re five percent behind and gain 50% you’re further behind.

.95* 1.5=1.425
1* 1.5=1.5

now you’re 7.5% behind when you were 5% behind last cycle. So no. We aren’t looking for the same percentage increase. Even the equitable increase requires a higher pay increase just to match back to 95% behind the legacies.


Smh. Let the people in the negotiations do their job.

You missed the point. There’s a number that’s know already. That’s the point. It’s in the neighborhood of the same % increase as others. Is it 2 or 3% higher than others? That would be a realistic assumption but it’s definitely not over 10% higher. Again the numbers are known.

I agree with let the negotiators do their job. I’m not sure why you felt the need to add that?

While this is true, there's more to the story (there always is).

The issue w/ looking at it from a finite max "number" being the case is that the "number" can and does change depending on what the company chooses to do. In the market, the COMPANY chooses the product. The COMPANY chooses how they market and offer it. The COMPANY decides what changes/adjustments that are necessary for improved revenue. This can come in many forms - an improvement of the app, better customer service, other incentives like bags/children/companions flying for discount, etc. Perhaps the company decides to transport cargo. Again, there are several ways to improve ones operation. So, at any time, the COMPANY can project a "number" that is more or less.

Let's say our initial proposal would increase pilot labor costs/compensation by $100M a month (just an example). The COMPANY could counter w/ $90M (citing they can't afford any more). How do we know if this is true given the company has the ability to make adjustments to increase revenue?

My contention is that it doesn't matter what the company says. The labor market is dictated by both our and other airlines of which is beyond their control. If we as pilots agree on a number that we deem as the MINIMUM acceptable to be fair to us - given the current market - then the company either meets it or we strike. That's it. If negotiations stall, drag out, etc. then that is handled by the market. It won't be that long before other airlines hire and the exodus begins. The company must ride that fine line between revenue and costs. The company has the distinct ability (and responsibility) to stay in business - Barry shrugging his shoulders while stating that labor costs too much is essentially admitting he's not good enough as a CEO to improve the company enough to afford it (while other airlines do). So for us it's really simple as the market has spoken. Making enough to cover is not our problem. Labor should never have to be concerned with the company's ability to operate and make a profit. That is MANAGEMENT'S job. If it's ever a serious concern for us, we work for the wrong company. Sooner or later, the price of everything goes up. Labor. Gates. Better customer service. Everything.

Either adapt (improve) or die. The minimum will be dictated via the TA process. 50.1% NO means the minimum hasn't been met.

What is really scary would be if the company sold their lie to us, we believed it, voted in a sub-par contract, then the company made ALL the changes to actually improve the product and kept the profit.

Honest evaluation of the unity of the pilot group is essential during these times. If it ever gets to that point how many will cross the “line” ? The answer should be an honest 0!

Do the vast majority of pilots have a “war chest” ? - a minimum of 3 months personal expenses is a good starting point. (Start NOW if you don’t)

As many of you know Indigo won’t even move the needle in a meaningful way until you are close if not actually in the cooling off period. Don't let Indigo frame the parameters of who your peers are for contract comparisons.

In unity

We'll somehow end up being the first pilot contract with "Loss Sharing"

Lol. Is that where at the end of each quarter we all have to chip in some cash to cover the losses?

Not quite.

If you're talking percentages, you're still only 5% behind.

1.425 / 1.5 = .95

If you move two contracts (or whatever units) by the same percentage factor then the percentage gap remains the same.


You're correct in absolute dollar terms (not percentage) we'd be further behind. 1.5 - 1.425 = .075.

Difference is significant, especially because other factors such as inflation eat into that gap.


So yes, I agree we remedy the gap with a larger increase. ~58% if it's ~50% bump elsewhere.

.95 x 1.58 = ~1.5
1.0 x 1.5 = ~1.5

This closes difference in absolute terms.

Exactly that