The Current Negotiating Environment
 

What is going on? We have a series of Tentative Agreements from Delta, FedEx, and Southwest that are largely concessionary in an environment that is conducive to large gains by each associated pilot group. I'm concerned about the union leadership (or lack thereof). No one seems to want to move the ball forward. I can't believe that these agreements have actually reached the pilot groups. It's mystifying!!! I hope that our MEC doesn't lay down like the union leadership from the airlines listed above.

I think it's much more complicated than that. This goes to highlight just how stacked against us the railway labor act is. Even in good times there is little incentive for management to negotiate up. It requires pressure and leverage, something the pilot group is limited in by law. I suspect that the substandard TA's being brought forward to the pilot groups are to create that leverage

Allow me...I'll be very quick.

The industry with the final three "legacies" and Southwest, is consolidated and fiercely competitive. No surviving management group at any surviving company is going to bless a deal that would put them at a competitive disadvantage with their industry peer companies. With an approximate +20% domestic market share at each of the four survivors, it minimizes the leverage obtainable from the NMB in a Sec 6 negotiation...too much potential for too much disruption. The MEC's likely did the best they could under consolidated circumstances.

There are a number of other issues related to your observation, but that's enough (no one reads this stuff anyways:)).

I truly wish you the best in Sec 6.

I agree with you; mostly. I hope (probably forlornly) that maybe there could be some management people with foresight beyond the end of the quarter, or the end of their nose for that matter, that could see the value of happy employees in a customer service industry. I admit it's difficult to precisely quantify this in the short term but the logic of it is irrefutable to those of us out in the operation daily and it is achievable without a disproportionate or uncompetitive increase in costs.

By the way, I didn't even begin to invent this. Paging Mr Kelleher. Paging Mr Bethune. Paging Mr Patterson.

A lowering our expectation thread already, how nice. Wait, next is a possible furlough or even bankruptcy. You never know.

I was actually raising them

Concessionary is a little strong of word. Being that each of these deals increased pilot costs as a whole, and that we have all truly been affected by concessionary deals the past ten years. I think it is a stretch. Now I agree that they have not raised the bar high enough.

It's interesting you'd like to conjure up the people they taught Jeffy how to lie, cheat, bribe and steal. I guess you could put a dress on it but it still a pig. Why not hope for a brighter future instead of reliving a checkered past.

How do you define "concessionary?"

If you mean that each and every section and paragraph of the contract doesn't show improvements and some even show some reductions, then every contract in my almost 38 years has been concessionary.

What do you want?

Money, duty rigs, commuting ease, base availability, easy reserve (no short calls), or what?

Everything has a price and to broadly call something "concessionary" is being intellectually dishonest (and a bit hyperbolic).

If there were "good old" days in this industry would someone please let me know when that was. It's been a fight with management for the whole time I've been at UAL, so I don't know what some seem to expect.

On the counter-point, people are asking pretty smart, pragmatic questions.

This industry has changed fundamentally over the last 35+ years. "Pattern Bargaining" (or "leapfrog" as we liked to call it) was a phenomenon that grew out of the regulated environment when there was less cost pressure to settle. The market forces are very different and very powerful today.

It isn't the industry in which your dad or grandfather flew...mine either.

65% of DAL pilots would disagree with you.

They are to be sure...they just aren't the big ones and subsequently aren't large players in the political arena that is domestic US market share.

A call for repeal of the RLA from the airline labor groups? This is what Alpa Pac should be using some of that $ for.

I highly doubt all 65% of the DAL pilots that voted "no" think it was a concessionary contract. I am pretty confident at least one or two voters thought it was just not enough gains to vote for it.

I will repeat myself again. A concessionary contract and a contract that does not provide enough gains are two totally different things.

It was concessionary in the work rule department. No debating that.

It was concessionary in the work rule department. No debating that.

Please enlighten us about this.

I love the "non" vote. To me it just seemed a bit too convenient and cozy for such an easy tentative agreement. But I have no idea what was in the non contract offer.

What I want is a deal that is a forward move, not a lateral move when most of the airlines are reporting record profits. Pay scales are very much a secondary consideration for me. Work rules, job security, and retirement are primary concerns for me. I look at a contract in its totality. I completely understand that this is a negotiation and we don't just get to demand what we want. Everything has a cost to it (for both parties).

First, the Delta deal...
65% of their pilots voted no. Thank God!!! They got decent, not great pay scales and a 1% increase in their DC plan (woo hoo). The cost was a haircut on profit sharing, JV language that was a serious threat to their career progression and job security, and a draconian sick policy. I viewed this deal as a loss of ground, not an overall gain.

Second, the FedEx deal...
The only thing that I can see that is really not acceptable is their retirement proposal. No changes to the "A" fund which means that because of adjustments for inflation means that what they get upon their retirement will not have that much buying power (especially for pilots getting hired now and retiring in 20-30 years). A low (I think about 9%) B fund. Industry standard is 16%.

Third the SWA deal...
Huge cave in scope! They not only let the camel nose into the tent, they let the whole camel in the tent with scope. Not only that, but they have a proposal of a 10% MATCH for their retirement. Industry standard is a DC plan with a 16% contribution.

I am a bit confused by this. Who would SWA code-share or partner with to take advantage of the scope cave? SWA is both a regional and a big airline. Not understanding why SWA management would want to farm out flying to cheaper labor when SW pilots are already so efficient and productive.

There is language in their current TA that they would provide code share feed for larger foreign carriers. I would argue that if they want to make money on that flying, they should do the flying.

I see. But they can't do the flying cuz they only have guppies. I guess if they want to provide the feed for the lunar shuttle service to the dark side of the moon then good for them.

Ah here's a thought, the Economic Data for the United States is pointing towards some hard times ahead. Airline Management wants to avoid a "rich" contract with an economy that's slowing down.

Of course, putting $3 billion dollars in the bank instead of buying back shares may also have been a good idea but why pass up a chance to blame it on the employees?

I can't argue with you on that point. Thanks Joe

Joe has always been the voice of reason. As an aside, I'm not buying into this "uh oh, things don't look good down the road BS!!" This thread is nothing more than wide body captains fearful of upsetting the apple cart. Been there done that. Go pound sand!!!!

Golly, this is such a great job, I'd just about do it for free!!

Oh, wait. I already did that. How much did GT make? How much did PM make? How much did JS make?

FUPM

This is a great gig. No one said doing it for free or we don't deserve more for our services. Apples to oranges.

It WAS a great gig. Now, not so much. I'll readily allow that it still beats hawking fruit or roofing, but adjusted for inflation, we are the biggest group of fraidy-cat blue collar *****s out there.

You have to have had a good gig to know what a bad gig is - I guess to some the merger and it's aftermath was an improvement but that does not make it a good gig.

Certainly no improvement on my part. Especially having to deal with some of the poor attitudes. But I certainly enjoy the job...just as I did prior to the merger.

+1 Scrappy.

For me, it was a OK gig from 95-2000. Great 2000-2002.
It sucked from 03-12.
It is OK now. Almost good. 2013-2015.

Looks like "sucked" is winning. I would be spectacularly happy simply making it back to "good". 20% pay raise, and 3-1 duty rig brings it back to "good", at least for me.

The economy has been slowing down for the last 20 plus years.

Some of the things that sort of influenced this are:

1. 2 8 year democrat presidents (Clinton and Obama).
2. Age 65
3. 9/11
4. Flood of RJ's increasing capacity too much
5. High fuel costs

The only thing that really makes me a bit nervous is all the occasional talk about age 70.

The world economy may slow but joe six pack still wants to fly from Chicago to Orlando for 79 bucks. Regardless of the security environment, this gig is all about supply and demand. Supply and demand among the pilot ranks and supply and demand of the customers.

This is the longest stretch of low fuel costs I can recall so that's good. The RJ's are decreasing in their dominance due to their poor economics, so that's good. ALPA doesn't appear to be pushing age 70 so that's good. Hopefully no big major US security event takes place and nothing bad since 9/11 sot that's positive. And, likely, we won't see a socialist democrat be elected and after the Obama abortion of a presidency likely no democrats elected for the rest of my lifetime. Yeah I know democrats are "labor friendly", but none of them would allow us to self help so it's a moot point. RLA limits what anyone can accomplish regardless of who is in the whitehouse.

Put all that above in a cake and bake it and I think our negotiating environment and our overall position is favorable.

I heard when it was analyzed based on projected profits, inflation, work rule and scope changes, the DAL TA actually was concessionary. The DAL projected profits are large, but not large enough to trigger the higher profit sharing percentage threshold and thus the pilots actually make more by keeping the lower pay rates and higher profit sharing (lower threshold) of the current contract. Kind of a bird in the hand vs. two in the bush thing.

Considering the airlines are currently in an era of record profits and low fuel costs, I'd say that the "market forces" actually favor pattern bargaining.

Be careful what you wish for. I can't recall hearing anyone from labor who really understands the RLA (I'm not in that group) advocate repealing it, and if you open it up to be amended, there are labor protections the industry would like to tear apart.

Don't Feed The Troll

Sort of...but only one component. Current market forces don't necessarily favor pattern bargaining on base components of pay.

Record profits are good for variable comp...bonuses, profit sharing, etc. Base compensation is largely driven by the supply and demand for class labor which hasn't changed except at the smaller, regional-type operations.

There is a misconception that base comp gets driven by profitability. It doesn't. However, your variable comp component has a good chance of rising significantly.

With an amendable date in 2017 and a likely settlement point somewhere in 2019, only time will tell. No skin in the game, but I'm hoping for good things between now and then.

Wow. Surely you can't be serious. Best days of my career were during the Clinton admin. Obama's tenure has been a boon for this industry...not to mention your B-fund. Presidents do lots of things besides imposing PEBs. (which he did not do for Spirit, btw). By appointing Babbitt to FAA, and Pistole to TSA, we now have FAR 117 and Known Crewmember. Obama's legacy.
Look at the carnage that occurred in this industry under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. Will we ever learn? :confused:

Sled the reluctant Democrat

Did not seem to be a problem for UAW before.

Great from 2000-2002? Well the big contract I guess. After the dust settled from that, the economy was obviously going south and UAL started losing piles of money. By the summer of 2001 I remember believing that furloughs were likely by winter. My last trip before 9-11 the Captain and I spent the better part of the flight from ATL-ORD discussing the fact that UAL was on track to lose over a billion dollars for 2001. That was without a black swan event like 9-11. Throw in all the uncertainty of the outrageously expensive bid for USair during part of that period and none of it felt right.

The paychecks were nice, but I would hardly call it a great time. The money made it harder to notice.