Look alfa, the professional airline pilot has made significant gains in compensation and work rules since the 1930's all the way until 9-11. The VAST majority of those contract negotiations were NOT cost neutral. They were contracts where management gave us things for "free." We didn't give up anything for them to make them cost neutral, they were pure and simple gains. Maybe you've only been around long enough to experience the "what are you willing to give up for it" era of negotiations, but that has not been the historical norm. If we care to fight for it, I believe we can all enter a new era of making pure gains...in other words, the end of cost neutral contracts.

The only contention comes from you parroting management's view that all future contracts must continue to be cost neutral to the company. It will only be that way if we all continue to give up being unionists, and strive to be management some day.

Exactly, so what. If there's an ADDITIONAL cost, let the company bear it. That's what it means to move away from cost neutral negotiations.

If the MEC agrees with this cost neutral style of thinking, we are lost. We will fall behind all of our other airline brothers. Maybe that's less important to you than sticking to the orthodoxy that you consider "immutable."

Carl

 

While everything has a cost, the checkbook will be opened up to a very significant degree. Period. As in somewhere in the 9 to 10 figures annually range. The fact that everything we want in C12K having a cost and the new contract having to be cost neutral because of that are two different things. The first is a fact, while the second is from a worn out copy of a bad airline manager's playbook.

 

DALPA is now my biggest concern...not ALPA. I initially believed that acl65pilot was right when he said all our LEC reps understood the importance of scope, and that we should just not worry about it. After all, our LEC reps are the ones that will give direction to the MEC and the negotiating committee. The fact that "Scope" seems to be a prohibited word to use among all DALPA communication, I began to have concerns. I thought I knew my reps, and where they stood. It looks like I'm wrong. In one of the system's most junior bases (DTW), I know that a vast majority of our base's pilots place scope restoration extrememly high. But it's clear that our council 20 chairman has no concerns about our current scope or joint ventures. None. Our council 20 #2 guy has not responded to me in months. Our council 20 #3 guy has sent out stuff in writing that makes him look like a serious scope hawk. But now guys here are saying he is all talk, and 100% cave in when the time comes.

So, my biggest concern appears to be true. Our local pilots get it. Our local pilots are communicating it. Our local reps do NOT agree...and they're all newly elected. Sigh...

Carl

 

Show me one time where I say "cost neutral". Having a cost and cost neutral are two different things. Pay attention. I fully expect that the next contract will increase costs, significantly. It is just there is a limit to everything. You went on strike and did not get unlimited pay. Once you agree that there is a limit then at some point you make tradeoffs. Pay attention.

 

"Cost neutral" is my extremely accurate distillation of your thought process in negotiations. It is proven by the many statements you make like this one:

That's good. You're careful to never make a statement like this until you're confronted as being a management stooge.

Nobody has said or inferred anything to the contrary.

We of course never asked for unlimited pay, thus never struck for unlimited pay.

This is the heart of your problem and why you really are a cost neutral guy in your core...you just have to deny it once confronted. Nobody disagrees that there are limits. Nobody has EVER said they want unlimited anything. Thus there is no need for trade offs within our contract unless you are a cost neutral kind of guy. There is only a need to decide what you are willing to fight for, then properly confront management with it...and laugh at them when they say: "What are you willing to trade off for it?"

Can't you come up with your own stuff instead of copying mine?

Carl

 

Heyas Carl,

Don't like them? Recall them.

It's a VERY easy process to get started. It only takes a resolution and and a minimum bit of organization. TOO easy, in fact.

The ANC FO rep found out the hard way and the FO rep in MSP ALMOST found out how easy it is for a determined minority to hijack the process.

Submit a resolution. Gather up some buds. Have everyone show up at the LEC meeting. Boom, done. My guess, given the generally apathetic nature of people actually showing up to LEC meetings, that you'd need no more than 20 people on your side.

Now comes the fun part. Who are you going to get to replace them? BB is out...he's got a national job now. LW? He said he was done with union work for a while. I'm sure the defeated guys from the last election would like the job, but do you want them? Obviously not, because, well, they didn't win.

Carl, I'm not giving you a hard time just because. I'd give ANYONE a hard time for the same reason. There are avenues available to the line pilot to shake things up.

If we feel wronged, then we should use them. Otherwise, we have no standing to complain.

The current Council 20 guys are as far out of sync with the current MEC as you can get, but they are only three people (only two of which who vote). What possible use would it be to replace them with people who are openly antagonistic? What possible change would occur? You are better served trying to get some change at the OTHER bases.

Nu

 

Well... that makes it all better then.. knowing I am being paid the same as a captain in the same seat as I am now occupying in 1990... hmmmmm yeah.. let's be sure we pay even MORE to get back to even. Sad thing is.. you win.

 

This is where we disagree. at least DALPA is working for US... ALPA... not so much... They have to feed their own bottomless pit... Just like the federal gubbamint.

 

Carl, it's really tough for you to admit you are wrong. So I say that GAINS in reserve will impact GAINS in other parts of the contract you come up with COST NEUTRAL. Show me how that math works.

You say there is no need for tradeoffs. Okay, I want 365 days of vacation and triple my pay. No tradeoffs, I want you to show up at the next MEC Meeting and tell the MEC how you are going to do that. What, are you a management stooge, a shill, can't you do that for me, because you claim there are no tradeoffs. Live up to your own words and deliver for me Carl.

 

Its not math he is talking about, it's mentality. Your belief that one gain must impact another.