One of the things that have come out of the riots have been the "Play Stupid Games, Win Stupid Prizes" memes where a rioter does something dumb and gets instant justice like a tear gas canister to the chest. The lesson is, don't play stupid games to start with.

I wasn't here for the previous rounds of boom and bust, but it's been apparent from reading this and other boards, watching documentaries of those eras focusing on our industry, and talking with folks who were here during those times, that we engaged in the company's concession game, hoping to win something while giving what we thought was a reasonable trade off. In the end, we wound up winning stupid prizes that lasted an inexorably long time. Would we have faced those stupid prizes anyway? Maybe, but maybe we shouldn't have been playing the game to begin with as it appeared rigged against us from the start.

What the company has right now is a training throughput problem on the Guppy. If they lop off 2850 by the end of the year, they lose over 20% of their Guppy TIs. If they lop off 3900, they lose 40% of those TIs. This isn't an issue on the Bus (5%/10% respectively), nor any of the other fleets (only the 756 looks similar--5%/35%, though 756 may be on the chopping block). The company desperately wants/needs those TIs to keep working at max capacity to get through the training backlog so they can then right size the company. The longer it takes to train into our highest demand airframe (and with fewer Guppy TIs, it will take a lot longer), the longer it takes to furlough as deep as the company probably wants to go. It also takes a long lead time to create TIs, so a longer lead time/more existing TIs helps with this as well.

So the game is being set up to keep everyone on property for X amount of time at the expense of MPG cuts in a tiered fashion. Never mind that these tiers and any downgrade pay freezes during this time are designed to incentivize us to tacitly accept an A/B/C scale (something I've heard we apparently struck for many years ago). Those in the bottom tier are on the chopping block anyway, they should be happy to just be employed, right? TK is running at 100% throughout that time, and best of all for Scott Kirby, we're paying for the excess that must be maintained to make that happen. Rest assured, there will be snapback language that will assure everyone that we go back to normal on XX Jxxx, 2021. Except it won't be normal. On that snapback date, the company will have right sized and will now be able to go to 3900, or 4500, or 6000 furloughs--whatever demand looks like at that time and going forward--immediately. If you're in the top of the bottom tier or bottom of the middle tier, this should concern you greatly. It should also concern you if you're being displaced to junior equipment and thought you'd be a mid-level lineholder. You're probably looking at reserve now.

Stupid game indeed.

So what should we do? I argue, don't play at all.

If you're genuinely concerned about the bottom of the list, advocate for an ALPA-based furlough fund to provide a stipend to furloughed pilots for a period of time to soften the blow of a furlough. That would truly be pilots helping pilots. If you still think the company's tiered MPG is designed to save money while demand is low, let's condition the language with the same MPG tiers and hard LPV caps on TIs to prevent a company end run around our contractual language requiring line pilots to be TIs. That was put in place to make furloughing harder; allowing TIs to work full bore while the rest of us "share sacrifice" negates this provision of the UPA. If you feel you support a MPG cut approach due to egalitarianism, I invite you to demand revocation of any language that freezes pay after downgrade at previous equipment rates and an across the board MPG cut of 15% to eliminate the obvious and odious wedges the company is clearly trying to drive in our membership. If that makes you pause, that's fine, you're self interested like we all should be, but own it and quit hiding behind wanting to help the little guy. As I stated in the first sentence of this paragraph, there's a better way to do that in house.

Don't win stupid prizes...again.

 

Would you care to share the details of this proposal?
Please don't use the faux Gardener(s) as your source; in case you hadn't noticed, there were details left out of their letter.

 

Viper,

You read my mind.

 

Are we negotiating in public now? My union speaks for me. Thanks.

 

I haven't seen any of these details. Is this from the fake gardener? I saw a fb post that insinuates the same, so I asked my Capt rep via text if we are close to an AIP/MEC vote. His answer was a simple 'No'.

So - please share the details of the rumored agreement as well as its provenance.

 

All I know is the faux Gardener's letter from the UAL pilot forum.
I know nothing else, other than the letter painted both the MC and any proposal in a negative light. It may be a correct assessment of the proposal or it may have a touch of bias. We'll have to wait to read anything - if anything even comes to fruition.

 

JBLU inked a deal with their pilots for undisclosed concessions in exchange for no furloughs until next May: JBLU pilots reach agreement

Delta has asked its pilots for a 15% MPG cut in exchange for no furloughs for a year: Delta asks for MPG cut

Kirby has publicly stated he wants a MPG in exchange for no furloughs for a certain amount of time.

The Gardner wasn't the first to this party, the rumor has been swirling for at least six weeks now. Rumor? Yes. Plausible? Definitely (see above).

 

I’m just going to add something. A negotiated reduction in our MPG is not efficient from a productivity standpoint. The Company would rather us work as many hours as we can and have the fewest bodies on property. An MPG decrease in and of itself is a snap back. This is not meant to negotiate in public!!!

 

Delta polled their pilots. 90% said no to ALV cuts. By a 2 to 1 margin they were in favor of protecting all sections of their PWA.

Who's going to foot the bill for 3900 pilot jobs? It certainly won't be the company who's burning through $30-40 per day. So the pilots will pay the bill via pay cuts but will recoup their losses from contractual gains? Again, how much is the company burning per day?

Plausible? I seriously doubt it.

 

Dash Trash,

Right idea, but wrong variable. The company would not want to raise MPG. Ever.
If we put Line Caps instead, then yes all of that is true as the company hates those.

MPG is only the floor that is used for times like protecting pay for reserves when those pilots don't fly guarantee.
The company bean counters hate seeing pilots paid not to fly and want to find ways to reduce those costs.

The company can and will find a way to raise the upper limits when and where they need it.

Make no mistake, MPG will be like RJ's.
The company will gladly take them the pilots are tricked into giving them away, but do so with the intent to keep the lower MPG for the long term.

SP