Never take the first offer.
11-15-2012 | 06:45 AM
#21
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
From: iah 73 fo
It looks like all of the "oh my Gods" are out of the way. Now let's talk turkey. That being said, I'm a 2005 CAL Hire currently on mil leave. I hold 777 FO at EWR. Here's my take.
It's called negotiations. If you take the first offer, you lose. Jeff doesn't expect this to pass. He expects us to return it with a "no" and he'll send the real offer. Please don't fall for "Car Salesman 101" tactics. I'm also realistic. We won't get everything we want. Here is my opinion. Please tell me where I'm wrong.
Vote no.
Tell the reps we want these things fixed in the contract they wrote.
1. Pay rates have to be adjusted to be at least ABOVE the current Delta contract for 2013 and beyond. Not limited to that though.
2. Furloughs from both airlines get full credit for furlough time. This will keep our Pilot group together. It's a divisive line that's important to a small group of guys. Don't let it divide us forever.
3. Scope. I used to be a "hell no" to anything over 50 type of guy.
After a lot of thought, I'm not sure we can keep it if it goes to a arbitrator. Here's why. At CAL, we don't have 50 seat scope. They can fly unlimited 50 seat jets and unlimited larger seat turboprops. UAL lost their scope under bankruptcy. My goal in the long run would be to capture all flying under the UAL brand into our pay rates. Lofty. I don't think that will happen on this contract. I'm willing to stand the line as long as possible, but I think we'll lose this battle.
4. Lump sum is not enough. It needs to be increased by at least 50% on both sides. I'm happy with the percentage allocated to each MEC.
5. We need to adjust the work rules in the reserve section. I bid reserve for a long time when I lived in Houston. I did it because the QOL was great on the 756 on reserve if you lived in domicile. In the contract they have the ability to "double pump" reserves still. I.E. get in at 6 am and depart at 7 pm same night. Some of these rules need to be carefully reviewed again to prevent this kind of B.S. I should also say, I'm not bidding reserve when I get back, so this is not a personal issue for me.
6. The ISL will take care of itself later. Most will stay on their equipment, make more money, and quality of life will be better than today. Nobody should win big or lose big. It's a battle among us though, so tell management to mind there business. Let's not put our garbage in the streets or worry about it until after we've kicked Jeff in the robin's eggs. We're professionals.
I think CAL gains some good work rules, and UAL starts getting some pay back they've lost through years of horrible management. We have a good start to a contract. The MEC did their best. We won't get everything we want. If we can get most of it, we should take it. However, we are not there yet for UAL or CAL.
Send it back with a NO and watch what happens. Remember, it's business for them. It's a little more personal for us as we sit in the pits together for the next 30 years. Vote for each other and yourself with a good balance for both and we'll get this done and still be buds. But either way, NO on the first.
Stick together in the fight. Cheers.
Your opinion.......
It's called negotiations. If you take the first offer, you lose. Jeff doesn't expect this to pass. He expects us to return it with a "no" and he'll send the real offer. Please don't fall for "Car Salesman 101" tactics. I'm also realistic. We won't get everything we want. Here is my opinion. Please tell me where I'm wrong.
Vote no.
Tell the reps we want these things fixed in the contract they wrote.
1. Pay rates have to be adjusted to be at least ABOVE the current Delta contract for 2013 and beyond. Not limited to that though.
2. Furloughs from both airlines get full credit for furlough time. This will keep our Pilot group together. It's a divisive line that's important to a small group of guys. Don't let it divide us forever.
3. Scope. I used to be a "hell no" to anything over 50 type of guy.
After a lot of thought, I'm not sure we can keep it if it goes to a arbitrator. Here's why. At CAL, we don't have 50 seat scope. They can fly unlimited 50 seat jets and unlimited larger seat turboprops. UAL lost their scope under bankruptcy. My goal in the long run would be to capture all flying under the UAL brand into our pay rates. Lofty. I don't think that will happen on this contract. I'm willing to stand the line as long as possible, but I think we'll lose this battle.
4. Lump sum is not enough. It needs to be increased by at least 50% on both sides. I'm happy with the percentage allocated to each MEC.
5. We need to adjust the work rules in the reserve section. I bid reserve for a long time when I lived in Houston. I did it because the QOL was great on the 756 on reserve if you lived in domicile. In the contract they have the ability to "double pump" reserves still. I.E. get in at 6 am and depart at 7 pm same night. Some of these rules need to be carefully reviewed again to prevent this kind of B.S. I should also say, I'm not bidding reserve when I get back, so this is not a personal issue for me.
6. The ISL will take care of itself later. Most will stay on their equipment, make more money, and quality of life will be better than today. Nobody should win big or lose big. It's a battle among us though, so tell management to mind there business. Let's not put our garbage in the streets or worry about it until after we've kicked Jeff in the robin's eggs. We're professionals.
I think CAL gains some good work rules, and UAL starts getting some pay back they've lost through years of horrible management. We have a good start to a contract. The MEC did their best. We won't get everything we want. If we can get most of it, we should take it. However, we are not there yet for UAL or CAL.
Send it back with a NO and watch what happens. Remember, it's business for them. It's a little more personal for us as we sit in the pits together for the next 30 years. Vote for each other and yourself with a good balance for both and we'll get this done and still be buds. But either way, NO on the first.
Stick together in the fight. Cheers.
Your opinion.......
Great post!!
Now make 10,000 copies and emails and give one to every pilot at union meetings, crew rooms, airports and aircrafts.
Got to open our guys' (and ladies') eyes!
11-15-2012 | 06:51 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
While each of us have our own thoughts on whether this TA is "good enough", and if not, what needs to be improved before we would vote yes, I do not necessarily agree with the title of your post. One need look no further than Airtran's deal with SWA to see that it is entirely possible that the first offer is the best offer. Is that the case here? Don't know. Question for the roadshow for sure.
Many of those Airtran pilots suffering the consequences of not taking the first offer were also perviously part of the Midwest pilot group that rejected a "first offer" also. They were furloughed into liquidation just in case you've forgotten or never knew. Most stayed unemployed for a few years before being picked up at Airtran. They hadn't accrued a year on the property when WN bought them, so they couldn't even vote on the WN deal and had to trust their MEC, who told Gary Kelly to pound sand on the best thing most of them would ever see in their careers. Kelly and the WN BOD were ****ed. It cost them a ton of money to delay the business plan. Consequently they reconsidered but only if the Airtran pilots paid much of the costs of the second attempt. Deal two sucks in comparison. Ask the Airtran captains who will have to sit in the right seat for a year under the new deal how they like being "re-socialized" and taught the WN way of doing things... STAND FIRM! ...Idiots...
A 3 party negotiation overseen by the NMB? It's amazing this thing got done when it did.
This TA is not like buying/selling an existing house where we can tell our agent to make or reject offers. It's much more like building a house and each time you go to the lumber yard you need something different to get the place finished. We can stand there and re-negotiate every 2 X 4, but until we at least get the shingles on, the place is open to the elements and getting rained on every day that goes by.
I say we either send it back with a 100% NO vote or accept it. Don't expect each little piece of language to be revisited. Concentrate on DELTA pay + and FULL RETRO.
11-15-2012 | 07:03 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Do you really think this could happen without replacing the NC first? Do you think the NC would be replaced with "more aggressive" pilots without LEC recalls FIRST? The process will take at least a year maybe more before they even sit back down at the table. It may be worth it, but I want some guarantees of a timeframe and none exist.
11-15-2012 | 07:07 AM
#24
Banned
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,282
Likes: 0
From: A320 Cap
My point is this is the first offer that we get to vote on. Which means it's the first offer. What other offer did you all see? They know the game. Why don't we?
Comparing Airtran to us is not applicable. They were bought with the intention of getting rid of airplanes. They had no leverage. If they walked away, they would've been fired and the 717's sold even quicker. Southwest would've just hired replacements. Gary made that clear. But SW had all the chips. Different from our situation.
AA also different as they are bankruptcy. But surprisingly they have managed to swing back while getting getting kicked in the jewels. They have more resolve than our group. Hence, their contract is still better than legacy CAL. We need to grow a pair collectively. We haven't even "flown the contract" for goodness sakes.
I'm not saying to vote no just to be difficult. I've read the entire contract and the notes. I would vote no for the above mentioned reasons in the original post.
If you've waited 4 years, what's another 2-3 months to get a 9% raise immediately? Don't let impatience cost you money in the long run. They are counting on it.
Comparing Airtran to us is not applicable. They were bought with the intention of getting rid of airplanes. They had no leverage. If they walked away, they would've been fired and the 717's sold even quicker. Southwest would've just hired replacements. Gary made that clear. But SW had all the chips. Different from our situation.
AA also different as they are bankruptcy. But surprisingly they have managed to swing back while getting getting kicked in the jewels. They have more resolve than our group. Hence, their contract is still better than legacy CAL. We need to grow a pair collectively. We haven't even "flown the contract" for goodness sakes.
I'm not saying to vote no just to be difficult. I've read the entire contract and the notes. I would vote no for the above mentioned reasons in the original post.
If you've waited 4 years, what's another 2-3 months to get a 9% raise immediately? Don't let impatience cost you money in the long run. They are counting on it.
I'm certainly not suggesting that your "no" vote is inappropriate or incorrect. That's your business, and I applaud you for reading the entire contract before you made your decision. I respect your rationale. But you opened up THE can of worms in your last sentence.
"If you've waited 4 years, what's another 2-3 months to get a 9% raise immediately? Don't let impatience cost you money in the long run. They are counting on it."
I too would be MORE than happy to wait another 2-3 months to get a 9% raise!! Would you be willing to wait another 2-3 YEARS to get a 9% raise? Mathematically that would be an error. Which would it be? Quite frankly, I doubt that you (or I) are presently in a position to answer that question. Hence my strong desire to go to the roadshow and hear from the guys in the room.
Frankly, I was shocked by the MEC vote. On the UAL side, 12-3 was astonishing to me. I fully expected it to fail. Or at LEAST be 8-7. They heard SOMETHING in their briefing that made so many of them vote yes. I know personally some of the "yes" voters, and they are NOT wilting flowers. So why the overwhelming "yes"? Was it a strategy for the NMB to send it to us KNOWING we would turn it down, thus gaining some leverage? Was there something said by the NMB tipping off our JNC that there would be NO more money, and they would NOT be releasing us? Beats me!! That's what I intend to find out before I make my decision.
11-15-2012 | 07:26 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Frankly, I was shocked by the MEC vote. On the UAL side, 12-3 was astonishing to me. I fully expected it to fail. Or at LEAST be 8-7. They heard SOMETHING in their briefing that made so many of them vote yes. I know personally some of the "yes" voters, and they are NOT wilting flowers. So why the overwhelming "yes"? Was it a strategy for the NMB to send it to us KNOWING we would turn it down, thus gaining some leverage? Was there something said by the NMB tipping off our JNC that there would be NO more money, and they would NOT be releasing us? Beats me!! That's what I intend to find out before I make my decision.
11-15-2012 | 12:21 PM
#26
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 840
Likes: 0
We are talking semantics here, I think. Your thread title was "NEVER take the first offer". My point is, SOMETIMES taking the first offer was is the best move... aka Airtran. It all depends on leverage. And at this point, I contend that you and I don't have any idea who has it, and how much. THAT is why I want to go to a roadshow so badly. I want to hear from the guys in the room. THEY are the ones that are most qualified to determine what kind of leverage we have with the NMB.
I'm certainly not suggesting that your "no" vote is inappropriate or incorrect. That's your business, and I applaud you for reading the entire contract before you made your decision. I respect your rationale. But you opened up THE can of worms in your last sentence.
"If you've waited 4 years, what's another 2-3 months to get a 9% raise immediately? Don't let impatience cost you money in the long run. They are counting on it."
I too would be MORE than happy to wait another 2-3 months to get a 9% raise!! Would you be willing to wait another 2-3 YEARS to get a 9% raise? Mathematically that would be an error. Which would it be? Quite frankly, I doubt that you (or I) are presently in a position to answer that question. Hence my strong desire to go to the roadshow and hear from the guys in the room.
Frankly, I was shocked by the MEC vote. On the UAL side, 12-3 was astonishing to me. I fully expected it to fail. Or at LEAST be 8-7. They heard SOMETHING in their briefing that made so many of them vote yes. I know personally some of the "yes" voters, and they are NOT wilting flowers. So why the overwhelming "yes"? Was it a strategy for the NMB to send it to us KNOWING we would turn it down, thus gaining some leverage? Was there something said by the NMB tipping off our JNC that there would be NO more money, and they would NOT be releasing us? Beats me!! That's what I intend to find out before I make my decision.
I'm certainly not suggesting that your "no" vote is inappropriate or incorrect. That's your business, and I applaud you for reading the entire contract before you made your decision. I respect your rationale. But you opened up THE can of worms in your last sentence.
"If you've waited 4 years, what's another 2-3 months to get a 9% raise immediately? Don't let impatience cost you money in the long run. They are counting on it."
I too would be MORE than happy to wait another 2-3 months to get a 9% raise!! Would you be willing to wait another 2-3 YEARS to get a 9% raise? Mathematically that would be an error. Which would it be? Quite frankly, I doubt that you (or I) are presently in a position to answer that question. Hence my strong desire to go to the roadshow and hear from the guys in the room.
Frankly, I was shocked by the MEC vote. On the UAL side, 12-3 was astonishing to me. I fully expected it to fail. Or at LEAST be 8-7. They heard SOMETHING in their briefing that made so many of them vote yes. I know personally some of the "yes" voters, and they are NOT wilting flowers. So why the overwhelming "yes"? Was it a strategy for the NMB to send it to us KNOWING we would turn it down, thus gaining some leverage? Was there something said by the NMB tipping off our JNC that there would be NO more money, and they would NOT be releasing us? Beats me!! That's what I intend to find out before I make my decision.
11-16-2012 | 08:25 PM
#27
Banned
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,282
Likes: 0
From: A320 Cap
Give me the facts (ALL the facts), let me do the math, and let the chips fall where they may.
Good luck to us all.
11-21-2012 | 02:16 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
Likes: 0
They need it more than we do
NYT article today on how smoothly the airlines are running, except this about United:
"The biggest laggard this year has been United, which is struggling with its merger with Continental Airlines. The carrier has had three major computer problems this year, including two that crashed the airline’s passenger reservation system, stranding thousands of travelers and causing significant delays and cancellations. Its on-time departure rate, as a result, was 76 percent this year, the industry’s lowest."
Most of the rest of the article focuses on how Delta does it so well. Nice.
If we vote the TA down they'll sweeten the pot and try to get this behind them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/21/bu...RQrSYu9fIR7Iug
"The biggest laggard this year has been United, which is struggling with its merger with Continental Airlines. The carrier has had three major computer problems this year, including two that crashed the airline’s passenger reservation system, stranding thousands of travelers and causing significant delays and cancellations. Its on-time departure rate, as a result, was 76 percent this year, the industry’s lowest."
Most of the rest of the article focuses on how Delta does it so well. Nice.
If we vote the TA down they'll sweeten the pot and try to get this behind them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/21/bu...RQrSYu9fIR7Iug
Last edited by APC225; 11-21-2012 at 02:53 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
