Obviously pay & work rules are sliding scales that produce total value. Fortunately in the wake of TUMI, I think the idea of concessions is off the table for our reps & any discussion of pay (for me, at least) is based on that assumption.

 

I think the company would be more eager to have the lion’s share of our raise trigger a snap-up at Delta to keep the cost structure roughly equal on the field of competition.

 

I’d agree that concessions are off the table, but current book with rates exceeding Delta would avoid concessions and still be cheaper for the company than what we’re most likely asking. This is a total value deal and the rates are only as good as the formula that they’re plugged into. The new MEC has heard from most of us in the form of survey participation and emails to reps. Now that Delta has set the bar and hopefully our union learned from the outrage over the previous MEC, I’m looking forward to reading what they come up. We won’t get everything that we want, and neither will the company. Should be an interesting read……..eventually.

 

A lot of people are getting emotional because the company is trying to screw us. This is not a theory; it is happening. Go back and reread the ccs message from Oct/Nov timeframe where the company called the 5% Covid LOA raise “a down payment on an industry leading contract.”

Of course people are emotional; they don’t like getting screwed. This only happens if we allow it!

 

I’ve been here for multiple rounds of the company trying to screwing us… This is not what it looks like. This is kind of the indignant take I am speaking of. Either you have not seen what actual malicious bad management looks like, or you have an incredibly short memory.

There are negotiating games being played by both sides right now, I certainly have no ill-will towards management at this point. If this drags out much longer than April, that I definitely will question Mr. Kirby’s sincerity.

It’s not up for us to develop a narrative about why we deserve what we are asking for. It is simply up to us to maintain a high standard communicate that to our union.

 

And I think, for some context, I remember what it was like coming to worked in the lost decade. I think a lot of us honestly lost years off the end of our life through high blood pressure annd the anger we harbored. It was well deserved, but I’m not going back to that mindset again. I will be voting NO unless this is a substantially lucrative &QOL positive contract, but I’m not going to let myself get angry if the company refuses to pony up.

I talked to a C-suite exec on a flight the other day, and we ended up talking for probably half an hour. It was very amicable right up to the last part of the conversation where he mentioned negotiations. I put forth that I expected large improvements in our contract. He countered that we already make a good amount of money and hope that the union will be reasonable with requests. I told him, with zero tension or anger in my voice, that the way our pay works, we might be living under a contract for well over a decade, and that it is incumbent upon us to make improvements when we can. I’m sure I didn’t change his mind substantially, but I think maintaining calmness and rationality is imperative when presenting our demands. If we act like a 10-year-old, who throws a tantrum in the grocery store knowing that our parent will have to give in, I think that has more negative implications for both sides, long-term, even if we do get our way.

 

I’d say we’re of the same mind there. However, the company should understand that a growing number of us will begin to respond emotionally as this drags on. That’s just simple human nature.

I think (I hope) we finally have a union that recognizes no deal is a better long-term strategy than the wrong deal. Which means the company can get serious about labor costs & wrap this up fast, or they can try to nickel & dime us & go into the summer with 15,000 pilots still losing double digit inflation on their salary & significantly trailing their peers in both pay & work rules. Option A sets them up for a slam-dunk summer of what is possibly the most critical moment in their United Next plan & puts them on track to make a boatload of cash. Option B? Well let’s just say Option B would be a very expensive education on the implicit cost of a disgruntled work force. Both will cost a lot; only one will pay them back.

I would reply rhetorically to the executive that hoped we would be reasonable in what we ask for that I hope he’ll be reasonable in what he’s willing to invest.

 

I am questioning his sincerity RIGHT NOW. “A couple of weeks” is what he said. We’re at 2.5. And we haven’t heard from GT in a week. I hoping its because they are making headway. If we are going to hold SK to his words, we need to stop saying things like “if there’s nothing till April” or “the next few months.” How about right now, this week.

 

Why do you guys think that due to the LOA we should get Delta +5%? Im absolutely all about getting Delta +5% because we deserve it, but the LOA 5% is already in our pay since December. Getting 18% (we should get more) is on top of the LOA 5% that we are already getting.

 

This always gets harder to explain than it should be. Over the pandemic we signed an LOA that earned us a 5% raise. (Whether that was a good idea is a different discussion, but this LOA existed explicitly outside the purview of the ongoing contract negotiations.) Because of that, many of us feel that a fair Section 6 negotiation should leave us 5% ahead of where we would normally expect to be (5% ahead of inflation, of Delta, etc.), otherwise we would essentially be giving back that money to management as a credit toward our Section 6 raise.

Because we’ve already gotten the 5% raise, DAL’s new rates are only around 13% above our current rate; but 18% above our 2019 rates when our contact became amenable. (Numbers are rough.)

SO…

Imagine a pilot in 2019 looking forward to 2023 with a foreknowledge of inflation & the DAL contract. That pilot would see that he would need 18% more money to keep pace with those metrics- and he would be reasonable to expect the company to provide that. Now, if he earned an extra 5% along the way by making concessions to the company, his net expectation of the company would now be 23%. If he kept his expectation at 18%, he would effectively be saying that he bargained that additional 5% on the company’s behalf.

The company, on the other hand, would like us to focus on DAL’s rates as the target, because (since we’ve already received the LOA 5%) a 13% DOS increase is all it would take to accomplish that goal.

I’ve used this analogy before, but it’s a little like picking up a trip mid month. You don’t then reduce the amount of money you expect from your line award so that the total compensation remains unchanged. You expect to be paid the sum of your original line credit & the trip you picked up. Section 6 is like your line award, & the LOA 5% is like the trip pickup. The company wants us to accept one as payment toward another. We want them to remain separate & get full credit for both.

You may agree or disagree but hopefully the concept makes sense.