jtrain609

On one hand, you say that periods of economic growth and recession are cyclical, and then at the same time you say that you can't predict when the cycle will swing, even though we have data telling us when it traditionally happens.

So which is it, Discord?

BeatNavy

If you can accurately predict the downturns you would be making billions (with a B) on wall st. No data can accurately predict them.

Queue is saying a downturn may come, but not in the term in which we still have a great negotiating landscape. Voting this down doesn’t mean we wait 12 months, or 2 years. It could, but the company needs this done sooner rather than later.

jtrain609

I know, I'm arguing that he's wrong.

When you're in the early part of a cycle, I agree, it's impossible to know what comes next.

When you've reached the end of an economic cycle, and you have 164 years of data to compare it against, the chances of being an outlier in having the economic growth period last longer than any period of time in those 164 years is slim.

I'm not saying it's impossible for growth to continue past 120 months, but only because I have to say it's not impossible, in the same way that I have to say that it's not IMPOSSIBLE that Robin Hayes is actually God in disguise.

But really, I'm really saying is that it's impossible.

BeatNavy

Ok, but what’s probable is that while we are still in the good times, which we are, and while the landscape is still favoring us, which it is, there’s no reason to accept rates this low, and raises that are still lower than everyone else’s. Do we want to be 4 years behind in the good years? As soon as a downturn occurs, we won’t be 4 years behind to go backwards...

jtrain609

Yeah...that's the thing.

Those 120 months come up next summer, and here's where reasonable people can disagree about what happens next.

I'm of the opinion that a failure of this TA means that we need to recall the MEC and NC and try again. I don't think this will take months, it'll take years to determine who the right people are, outline a strategy, and then negotiate what the pilot group wants from the company.

I'm not saying that this is the only path forward, and I'm not saying that it's impossible to send the current NC back in to continue to negotiate. I'm saying that I wouldn't want to see that happen after such a monumental failure as a rejected TA.

If the NC didn't get it right, we need new people, otherwise we're going to get the same result again.

BeatNavy

You think that if it fails 45-55 the NC/MEC needs to go? Or 49-51? As I said before, a few things to sweeten it up to “market rate” that I outlined before will tip the scales tremendously. Easy to send them back to the table for a few items without the blow up/recall/restart.

jtrain609

Yes, because the aim point for the NC and MEC shouldn't be to get 50 percent +1 votes, it should be closer to 65 to 70 percent yes. If it gets rejected by a single percentage point, or even a single vote, that means the NC cut things WAY too close, and the pilot group believes there's a lot more money left on the table.

I figure 10-15 percent of the pilot group is going to vote no out of spite, or because of some inane argument like, "You never say yes to the first deal!" (Heads up for you guys who think this, the NC has already said no THOUSANDS of times during the negotiations, you just weren't in the room to hear it). This group will vote no in any event. Figure another 15-20 percent votes no because they don't like the deal, but this group will only vote yes when we get FedEx retirement, Delta profit sharing, Southwest scope, and American retirements.

BeatNavy

On the contrary, if the company gets any more than 50.1% approval, they gave up too much. If it is close to passing, and the scales can tip just enough to make it pass, there is no reason for the company or the negotiators to make all sorts of demands, change a lot of stuff, etc. Both sides want 50.1%. As soon as they hit that, the deal is done and over with, and both sides can move on and stop spending time and money negotiating. That's the whole point. 50.1% is the goal. I may vote yes. I don't know yet. But I can say that based on the bullet points, this falls short. And if this fails, I would hope the NC/MEC would get together, get some feedback from the line (via hopefully better surveys than the last 2), find out a few non-starter issues (rates and raises for me), go back to the company, offer it up, get a new AIP with a few updates, and bam, done. No need for additional road shows, no need for a long period of time. If the data is there, the fixes are there, a lot of us leaning no now will change to yes, and it can wrap up.

todd1200

We have an AIP that few of us saw coming (and the few who thought it was possible in the near-term were widely ridiculed) and now, despite the fact that we don’t understand exactly what factors led the company negotiatiors to agree to this AIP (I think it’s safe to say Baker’s downgrade and the likelihood of a summer implosion were high on the list, but do we really know?), many of those who were most pessimistic about our odds and most willing to accuse the company of doing everything they could to delay an agreement indefinitely have suddenly become quite optimistic about our odds of getting a renegotiated TA in short order and have a ton of confidence in the company negotiatiors to quickly return to the table with some awesome improvements. If you didn’t see this AIP coming, how can you have such a high degree of confidence in your predictive capabilities? If I could go back 30 days and take bets on when we’d get an AIP and what it would contain I think a huge majority of pilots on here would lose a ton of cash. At some point don’t we have to show a little humility and admit that we’re not quite sure why we are where we are now or what exactly is going to happen next? Whether you vote “yes” or “no” I think there has to be some recognition that the economy is volatile and good times don’t last forever. There is some risk in voting either way, and an honest assessment of that risk is part of a well-informed decision.

jtrain609

Like I said, I don't agree with you, but this is where reasonable people can disagree as to what happens next.

I'm not saying that what you're saying is impossible, just that I won't be advocating for the path you've outlined if the TA is rejected.

As for me, I look forward to reading the actual TA language. If section 1 isn't where I think it should be, I won't be reading the remainder of the TA because it doesn't matter. I've already had 10 years of my career ruined because of RJ's, I don't intend on being at an airline where that cycle continues.