fcoolaiddrinker

Work rules and pbs transition language. In reading your agreement that’s available for alpa members some protections were visible but there were some protections that were lacking or at least not visible. Its a summary and not the actual language. Sorry to hijack a swa thread pertaining to Alaska when I’m an f9 pilot. Lol. But yes you need the work rules and transition language to make pbs a good thing. I’d be surprised if swa management didn’t push for pbs in mediated talks at some point.

Lewbronski

OTOH, what a lot of pilots don’t appreciate is how much leverage the Alaska pilot group had that they did not exploit. I get that their contract was terrible but it’s also a reflection of decades of them not understanding how to play the game. This is the pilot group, after all, that agreed to arbitration if they couldn’t reach an agreement with the company on the terms of their contract by Dec 15, 2004. That arbitration ruling led to the infamous “Kashtration” that slashed pay rates by an average of 26%. They ended up where they were mostly as the result of blundering unforced errors.

Though management and not the pilot group filed for mediation (why?), their SAV was encouraging. They had momentum. Like the rail workers who entered mediation just a couple of months after the Alaska pilot group, they also had nearly perfect timing.

An important event occurred at the end of 2021 that virtually no airline pilot mentions or even seems to be aware of. The NMB went from a Republican majority to a Democratic majority. That change in political composition of the NMB is most likely what allowed the rail workers to be released from mediation into a cooling off period after only a few months instead of the much more typical few years. The one NMB member who voted against releasing the rail workers in June 2022 was the lone remaining Republican on the Board.

Had the Alaska pilot group wanted to, they likely could have ended up in a similar spot as the rail workers with a release from mediation this past spring/early summer, then a cooling off period, then, most likely, a PEB lasting into late summer or early fall.

In terms of impact on interstate commerce, the rail workers pack a much bigger punch than the pilots of Alaska Airlines. They had the potential to severely snarl national supply chains at a most inopportune moment. If they could get released, Alaska pilots, with their much smaller ability to throttle back commerce, could also have been released.

The rail workers intentionally pushed for a release from mediation so that their PEB would be wrapping up near the peak of the mid-term election campaign season for maximum effectiveness while Democrats are still in control of Congress.

Had the Alaska pilot group played the game similar to the way the rail workers played it, all through the busy summer travel season Alaska would have had to deal with the “book-away phenomenon” of passengers hearing stories and rumors of Alaska pilots possibly going on strike soon. That effect would have grown as the date of a possible legal strike grew closer.

It’s important to note that railway management capitulated on day 59 (of 60) of their PEB with just hours remaining before rail workers could have walked off the job. What would Alaska management have done?

Two GOP senators attempted to introduce legislation in the last week of the PEB to block a strike and force the rail workers back to work on management’s terms if the PEB expired without a TA. Sen Sanders from Vermont, however, blocked their attempt. Something like that probably won’t work out so well for labor over the next couple of years if the GOP regains control of either the House or Senate or both.

So, yes, the Alaska pilot group’s SAV was great. Compared to their previous contract, they made gains. But that’s not saying a lot. And it’s saying even less given the nearly ideal conditions they allowed to be frittered away.

Why were the rail workers able to take full advantage of their leverage while the Alaska pilot group stopped short? There are a lot of reasons, I’m sure. I don’t know what all of them are.

But being pretty familiar with the Alaska pilot group and super-familiar with the SWA pilot group, one thing we both have in common is a huge preponderance of “kool-aid drinkers.” That has certainly played into why SWA has perennially ended up with lagging contracts.

One dynamic that it (kool-aid-ism) seems to fuel is a sort of willful ignorance on subjects like what I’ve discussed above - you know, subjects that, if mastered by a majority of a pilot group, could make that pilot group “dangeruss” (as in the Russell Wilson Super Bowl glory years sense of the word).

Many, many pilots, though, seem to adopt some degree of a mindset, even if unspoken or somewhat ill-formed, of “Man, I can’t believe the company pays me to do this job.” There’s an unspoken, maybe even unrealized, feeling that the pilot owes it to the company to not fight too hard or ask for too much. That’s a problem when it comes to actually having the will to go the distance to raise the bar and obtain a truly industry-leading contract.

BTW, notice I didn’t mention the purported pilot shortage even once because, if it exists at the major airline level, it isn’t our strongest leverage.

RJSAviator76

Alaska pilot group choked. Simple as that. They barked (SAV and picket). Their management threw them a bone in form of some improved work rules over the atrocity they had before, and a snap-up rate just to shut them up, and like loyal lapdogs, they jumped all over it, forgot all their leverage, gave in to FUD about the economy, and passed the buck to others to do heavy lifting for them. But then if you tried to tell them hey, they're only giving you scraps - you can do better, they'd growl like you were trying to steal their scraps.

And yes, the 38% factor here is concerning as well.

hoover

It really isnt a snap up either. It's an average of others IF they get a new contract by a certain date or their 4% raise. I'm assuming it's set up so all they'll get is that 4% raise.
Plus it takes a while for those rules to be implemented.
our union better not send us anything close to this turd

RJSAviator76

Or even worse, their signing bonus? I'd want SWAPA heads on the platter if they agreed to something like this.

WHACKMASTER

Same. In fact, we’d probably be racing for the recall petition.

coflyr

In the SWAPA podcast titled “50” the NC members said they and the company have already agreed to full retro back to day 1.

4V14T0R

That's not true. What they said was they introduced an LOA to get full retro, and the company told us to go **** ourselves basically. Here's the quote:

"And simultaneously we did provide a ratification bonus LOA, the company said thank you and put it in their pocket and didn't do anything with it, but it is on the table. And they have been put on notice that our pilots do expect to get their retro pay or the equivalent of retro pay back no matter how long this drags out. And based on what happened in 2016, I think they have a right to have that expectation."

GoodJet

18 percent of us didn't but as a majority you are correct. Beware of those masquerading as economic experts who fly airplanes. I never listen to them because I've never seen them be correct about anything. I watched in disbelief, as those who presented economic gloom and doom to the pilot group over and over shouted down anyone who didn't agree our world is about to end economically. These people come out of nowhere as soon as a TA is presented.

coflyr

Ah you’re right. Should’ve listened a little longer.